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

I prefer "alternative" (as in @alt) which matches the author intent
and is less subjective. Let WCAG and others argue the case for

WCAG 2 "equivalent alternatives"

On 7/6/07, Peter Krantz <> wrote:
> On 7/6/07, Joshue O Connor <> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, and also think that the term 'fallback' content is
> > inappropriate for other reasons. IMO it is not a suitable term at all.
> > [snip]
> > I would suggest 'equivalent'
> +1 for this suggestion. This makes it clearer for the reader that we
> are talking about content that may actually be used when the image is
> displayed (and not only as a fallback when the image can't be
> displayed). To avoid endless discussions of the content aqctally being
> equivalent, a note could be added to the spec clarifying that the
> contetnt should "strive to be equivalent" or so.
> The question of a container for this type of content needs to be
> resolved though. So far I have seen two suggestions:
> 1. Keeping the equivalent content inside the container itself (i.e.
> inside image, picture, object etc)
> 2. Keeping the content in a separate container which, I guess, could
> be placed somewhere else with an appropriate connection between the
> two.
> Some questions:
> For #1, should there be a UA feature that displays the equivalent
> content? If so, what would be the recommended way of doing so?
> What type of elements are allowed in the euquivalent content? image? video?
> Regards,
> Peter Krantz

Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 11:07:36 UTC