- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:14:58 +0100
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > I think "fallback content" will be misunderstood by many authors. [...] I agree, and also think that the term 'fallback' content is inappropriate for other reasons. IMO it is not a suitable term at all. As I think Gregory pointed out, 'fallback' for whom? 'Fallback' has a rather pointed connotation that it is somehow secondary or not that important and for non-visual users it is obviously 'primary' content. The term 'fallback' also gives the impression to the author that they really don't have to bother with this as it's only 'fallback' content and if the main element whether it's an image, video etc works - well then, they don't have to worry about the 'fallback' stuff do they? I would suggest 'equivalent' (maybe we need an <equal> element?). Equal, not fallback or secondary or "if that doesn't work this will do" etc. The language is actually potentially discriminatory and I certainly know that is not the intention of the authors - but it's really important to pay attention to the subtleties of the language that we use - as it can have an impact, both positive and negative, that we often never perceive. By the way, this is not a politically correct thing - but people with disabilities to not want to feel they are being served as part of a 'fallback' exercise or in a 'special' manner. They just wish to be treated equally - with all that entails. > The same problem exists with the title attribute. It might be a good idea if > the spec would define a maximum length (in characters, if possible) for both > attributes, so that authors can be sure that conforming UAs will present > these attributes' content in its entirety. It may be best to 'suggest' a limit and indicate it they need more that can use /<insert suitable attribute/element/method>/. Josh
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 10:15:17 UTC