- From: Philip & Le Khanh <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:58:04 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > Sadly we can't provide the same > functional information to a non-sighted user, since the information in > this case is inherently visual. Much the same as you can't provide a > good alternative for an embedded piece of instrumental music to a deaf > user. A deaf user who used to be a musician will be able to "hear" a score if he/she is presented with one as the "ALT" attribute to an an embedded piece of instrumental music ... > I think the case that's not covered is content that is semantically > meaningful, not "just eye candy", but where at best you can provide a > description (possibly already in the document), not an alternative. Once > again I cite <http://flickr.com/photos/othermaciej/>. 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. If you've only ever eaten foie gras and smoked salmon, it may be hard for you to imagine millet and sago as possible alternatives. But if you were brought up on millet and sago (by which I mean good textual descriptions of images), you may well be very satisfied by them. Philip Taylor
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:59:28 UTC