- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:44:54 +0100
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
> > # [07:50] <Lachy> aargh! It really annoys me how some people conflate making content accessibile with providing fallback to those without the necessary software Am unsure of why this frustration arises. AFAIK the whole idea is that accessible content/fallback content are for all intents and purposes - the same. >> > > # [07:52] <Hixie> the most annoying thing for me in public-html is the way most people jump to a solution rather than determining the problem Thats not true. People try their best to answer related threads and contribute. If there is frustration about this then it should be made more explicit that there is an expectation or preference for problem determination rather than problem solution. That will totally confuse the kids. >> > > # # [07:54] <Lachy> yeah, that too. I tried getting people to focus on the problem months ago, and it didn't really work then, and still not working now >> > > # # [07:55] <Lachy> like in the whole headers="" debate, I tried to talk about how we could make tables accessible without needing headers, and basically got accused of ignoring the needs of the accessibility community >> > > # # [07:55] <Hixie> yeah >> > > # # [07:56] <Hixie> it's ridiculous This is slightly alarming as it seems to say that - we tried to ask you what you thought but we didn't like the answer we got so we may not ask again in the future. As far as the headers thing goes I am totally in the dark about what the suggested replacement technique was/is. Hence my own insistence on keeping the whole id/headers thing afloat - for both legacy UAs and also because I am confused about what the suggested replacement should be. >> > > # # [15:01] <Dashiva> This is orthogonal to fallback/alt content for images, though >> > > # # [15:05] <Lachy> oh well, the legal stick of accessibility has been waived again :-/ >> > > # # [15:05] <Lachy> why is it that when accessibility advocates can't come up with a rational argument, they always fall back to the legal stick? >> > > # # [15:08] <Dashiva> Well, maybe they realize there are no carrots available? >> > > # # [15:25] <mpt> If the Web had smell-o-vision, would accessibility advocates fight for longdescs of odors on behalf of those with no sense of smell? >> > > # # [15:27] <Lachy> A perfume site that made use of smell-o-vision would probably provide a description of the smell anyway for all users, so they can know what it's like before sampling. This section is frankly kind of amazing. In several fell swoops the entire efforts of the accessibility people on the list are dismissed as almost Pavlovian responses and then an absurd dialogue about smell-o-vision ensues. This is trivializing the efforts of people here who are concerned about the needs of people with disabilities. Josh
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 20:45:07 UTC