Re: Proposal: accessibility revision for the img element...

On Jul 6, 2007, at 13:14, Joshue O Connor wrote:

> '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.

Political correctness aside, realistically, it *is* secondary as far  
as the *author* is concerned. Or more to the point, the still image,  
canvas or video is *primary* from the realistic *author* point of  
view. If this wasn't the case, the author would provide the text in  
the main body of the content--not as something that is only presented  
when something else isn't.

> 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

That's a fair point.

> I would suggest 'equivalent' (maybe we need an <equal> element?).

That will lead to endless discussions about whether content in  
different media can ever be truly "equivalent".

Henri Sivonen

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 10:29:42 UTC