- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:09:54 +0200
- To: "Maurice Carey" <maurice@thymeonline.com>, "HTML Working Group" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:49:45 +0200, Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com> wrote: > On 6/20/07 7:47 AM, "Ben Boyle" <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com> wrote: > >> <figure> > <legend>...</legend> > <img >> src="http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/media/graph.jpg"> > <table> ... >> </table> > </img> > <figure> > > > I like your fallback idea but I personally would want to see both the > graph > image and the data table. I'd imagine a fallback being better used with a > flash based graph that falls back to the image + table. > ....maybe with an id on the caption of the table that is used in the > longdesc attribute of the image? That would be one obvious way to do it. The User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (the document that talks about things browsers need to do to be more accessible) says that you should be able to choose between what it calls conditional content - fallbacks, alternatives, etc. at http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/guidelines.html#tech-conditional-content (just before it says that users should be able to ensure content ISN'T rendered, because that can be important too...). Implementation of some of this in browsers isn't so hot :( It doesn't mean generally that it is a bad idea, just that it hasn't happened yet. Some of the important features for navigating the web were not added to screen readers in the first decade of the web... Cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 00:10:09 UTC