Re: Flickr and alt

adding provisions for access to many many public facilities was not easy to 
meet either, but it became law and everyone benefits except those who didn't 
want the disabled in.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk>
Cc: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "James 
Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>; "Steven Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>; 
"Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>; 
<public-html@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Flickr and alt



On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:25:11 +0200, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)
<P.Taylor@rhul.ac.uk> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>  [...]I was trying to point out that Flickr cannot start requiring
>> users to <perform some task> as that will simply kill their business.
>
> Exactly the same argument was adduced about requiring
> public houses to require their customers to either
> refrain from smoking completely, or to smoke outside.
>
> The pubs /didn't/ go out of business, and most of their
> customers came to accept that -- by following the rules --
> they were improving the environment for everybody.

Not smoking or smoking outside is a requirement that is easily met. Adding
useful alternate text to the ~300 images you upload a couple of times a
year is not. (The requirement not being easily met was the core point of
my argument, but you forgot to quote it.)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>

Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 13:38:30 UTC