Re: equivalent content must not be an either/or proposition

At 21:18 +0900 UTC, on 2007-07-14, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 11:09:28 +0900, Gregory J. Rosmaita
> <> wrote:
>> first of all, it's not alternate, but equivalent content that is
>> needed, [...] not a choice between the image
>> and rich fallback content
> Just to clarify this use case a bit (I will do so on the Wiki as well).
> There are many people who have partial vision - which comes in a lot of
> flavours. Sometimes they can make out the image, sometimes not. When a
> page was designed with a graphical vision in mind, being able to see that
> is valuable - but sometimes you also need the help provided by the
> equivalent content.

Yes, essentially it's all just about conveying the same through different
media. In that sense they are obviously equivalents. UAs will need to default
to one of them though (while still allowing explicit acces to the other(s)),
which means they are alternates (*whichever* the UA defaults to).

So I'd say that on a content level we're talking about equivalents. On a UI
level about alternates. Only when one of the equivalents *can* for whatever
reason not be presented, the UA level "fallback", becomes relevant.

Might that description be agreeable to everyone? :)

Sander Tekelenburg
The Web Repair Initiative: <>

Received on Saturday, 14 July 2007 22:02:08 UTC