- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:39:54 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Simon Pieters wrote: > > The spec says about <object>: > > In the absence of other factors (such as style sheets), user agents > must show the user what the object element represents. Thus, the > contents of object elements act as fallback content, to be used only > when referenced resources can't be shown (e.g. because it returned a > 404 error). This allows multiple object elements to be nested inside > each other, targeting multiple user agents with different capabilities, > with the user agent picking the best one it supports. > > However, what about the case where the UA supports the primary format > but it can't be "shown" in a particular view (e.g. an image when reading > the document aloud)? Shouldn't the fallback be used in such cases, just > like alt="" would be used for <img>? If it can't be shown, then the fallback is used. That's what the text you quoted above says. Isn't that ok? > I haven't thought much about this yet or how it's supposed to work, > though. See this comment: > > http://juicystudio.com/article/html5-image-element-no-alt.php#comment19 That's just another example of why screen readers aren't the optimal way of making HTML accessible to users who can't use the browser's output medium -- a native renderer for the user's preferred medium is a better solution. (e.g. using IE if you're blind wouldn't be as good as using a (currently hypothetical) native speech renderer.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2008 22:40:28 UTC