- From: Smylers <Smylers@stripey.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:47:59 +0100
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Robert Burns writes: > On Jun 26, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Smylers wrote: > > > Robert Burns writes: > > > > > <object > > > data="foo.mpeg" > > > alt="My kitten fluffy playing with yarn." > > > title="fluffy playing with yarn" > > > > Fluffy, still only a few inches tall, is playing with a red ball > > > of yarn that has to 3 times her size. She has just fallen on her back > > > and it looks like the ball of yarn is crushing her. But she's really > > > just having fun. </object> > > > > > > Do the two character strings look different to you in this example? > > > > Yes, those are different. > > > > But it isn't clear to me under what circumstances having both these > > alternative representations available is advantageous. > > Well, I was adding the @title attribute to push the discussion a bit. Ooops, I wasn't looking at title, and my previous comment was based only on the alt attribute and the enclosed fallback content (I stand by it though). > As for @alt, it may bet that an aural browser user might want to hear > a little snippet like that @alt attribute before deciding what order > to consume the embedded elements in. That would mean that: * The enclosed fallback content is a true alternative to the video (or whatever) that cannot be viewed. * The alt attribute is a summary of that fallback content. I'm not going to argue against having both of those things (though I question authors' enthusiasm for providing them), but they'd need better names: in no way does alt="" suggest that it's a summary of the true alternative content, which can be found elsewhere. Smylers
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 21:48:26 UTC