- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 07:41:44 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 14:23 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-01, Lachlan Hunt wrote: [...] > You are incorrectly assuming that a textual alternative is needed to > make content accessible. Would you mind sharing what the correct assumption would be then? I tend to use the term "textual alternative" because "fallback" appears to confuse people about what the alt attribute is for. FWIW, Adobe speaks of "text equivalents": <http://www.adobe.com/resources/accessibility/flash8/author.html>. > Try doing some research into how formats like > Flash, PDF and other plugins have incorporated accessibility features > directly in themselves. That would certainly be interesting. Any pointers much appreciated. But I don't see how the features of individual plugins apply to the generic "plugins". If it's guaranteed that every file format that can be provided through <embed> will allow authors to provide a decent fallback/textual equivalent/alternative, then the only need for <embed> itself to allow for its own fallback/textual equivalent/alternative would be if we consider that necessary for cases where the resource cannot be loaded. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Sunday, 1 July 2007 05:42:11 UTC