Re: fear of "invisible metadata"

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think the case that's not covered is content that is semantically meaningful, not "just eye candy", 

Thats what this whole discussion is about - really.

>but where at best you can provide a description (possibly already in the document), not an alternative. 

In many ways that what you/we already are doing, except it is only an
alternative for those that can't see the image and therefore need it.

>Once again I cite <>. 
>The images in there are all very much meaningful (they are the point of the page) but it's hard to imagine useful alternative text. 

There are many other cases where alternate descriptions are very much
needed (no disrespect Maciej, some of your meals looked nice) and it
many instances the delivery method already exists, like alt etc. The
problem that you seem be indicating is the difficulty in writing *good*
alt text. This is an entirely different issue but an important one. The
best the WG can do is provide tools that make this easy, are supported
and get the job done, but in the final analysis the final responsibility
is in the hand of the author.


Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:54:53 UTC