- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 14:23:40 +1000
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > At 17:36 +0200 UTC, on 2007-06-30, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:28:58 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com> wrote: >>> That's when fallback content is needed: for non-text media (that is >>> sometimes serviced through plug-ins). >> >> Isn't that a problem with the plugin? > > Can you describe how we can leave the the technique/syntax to provide textual > alternatives up to plugin developers and still comply with our design > principles' Priority of Constituencies and Universal Access? You are incorrectly assuming that a textual alternative is needed to make content accessible. Try doing some research into how formats like Flash, PDF and other plugins have incorporated accessibility features directly in themselves. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 04:23:50 UTC