- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 10:56:41 +0100
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- CC: public-html List <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns wrote: > > Re: <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/LongdescRetention?action=show> > [...] The page is still about the need for facilities for lengthy > and rich text equivalents, but it makes no assumptions about the > current solutions of the alt and longdesc attributes. > > There is a separate wiki page that deals with a separate need for > shortened or summary equivalent text[1]. I /wonder/ if we are in danger of following a cowpath here, when there is a far better road than no cow has yet bothered to explore [1]. The underlying implication of Rob's message is that if someone cannot see an image, a rich textual descrition is the next best thing. My questions i, is this always the case ? Is it not /possible/ that (say) an aural description might not be better in some circumsdtances ? Should "alternatives" not include all possible media, rather than just rich text ? Philip Taylor -------- [1] Cows are notoriously stupid creatures; following them blindly seems the height of lunacy to me.
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 09:56:54 UTC