W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Is Flickr an Edge Case? (was Re: HTML Action Item 54)

From: Matt Morgan-May <mattmay@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 10:20:56 -0700
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
CC: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Karl Groves'" <karl.groves@ssbbartgroup.com>, "'Andrew Sidwell'" <w3c@andrewsidwell.co.uk>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, <wai-liaison@w3.org>, "'HTML4All'" <list@html4all.org>
Message-ID: <C4619108.888A%mattmay@adobe.com>

On 5/26/08 5:59 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> We have to
> consider the costs and benefits of meeting these requirements.  If
> we enforce them on everyone, one thing we'll do is force a lot of
> this content off of the Web entirely, which would make it accessible
> to much fewer people.

By this logic, Flickr, et al., would never have existed in the first place,
since @alt is mandatory today. And yet, last I checked, it does. Standards
are not laws, and you will not be legislating anything out of existence by
leaving @alt mandatory.

Furthermore, I've been around for most of the web's history, and I can't
think of a single case where disability groups have demanded, or asked, or
even intimated, that new web technologies or paradigms _must not be
developed_ before they are fully accessible. That would make this argument a

(Note: before bringing up lawsuits like Southwest, Target, the 2000
Olympics, etc. those suits were all seeking technically-feasible
accommodations for users with disabilities; none of them, as far as I know,
ever suggested that the sites should be taken offline since they were

Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:22:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:31 UTC