- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:09:33 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
At 10:56 +0100 UTC, on 2007-08-25, Philip TAYLOR wrote: [...] > 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 ? It is not. It satisfies an universality requirement, not an accessibility requirement. (See <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityConsensus>.) > Is it not /possible/ that (say) an aural description > might not be better in some circumsdtances ? Absolutely, yes. > Should "alternatives" > not include all possible media, rather than just rich text ? Yes, this problem is stated at <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ABetterAlt>, as the (currently) 4th and 6th problem description. From all the potential solutions that have so far been discussed, the there proposed <alt> element seems to be the best by far still. Not only because it could satisfy both universality and accessibility requirements, but also because it would be a single mechnanism for both. I think it goes without saying that that (in itself) is preferable to a single universality solution and one or more additional accessibility solutions. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Saturday, 25 August 2007 15:10:04 UTC