- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:16:39 -0600
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > Ian Hickson wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> >>> I haven't seen any follow-up discussion. I'm interested in hearing what >>> the rest of the Working Group thinks. Does anyone strongly agree with >>> Matt that the sentence he objects to should be removed? Does anyone >>> strongly feel that the sentence should be retained? Does anyone have >>> alternate wording to suggest that might be acceptable to everyone? >> >> I think that its's important that we at least acknowledge the possibility >> that user agents use image analysis techniques, and certainly that we >> explicitly allow the use of such techniques. Even a straightforward OCR of >> many images with no alternative text would dramatically improve the >> accessibility of many pages. > > I don't feel strongly either way about keeping it or removing it. I > certainly don't have any problems with it myself, especially if existing OCR > techniques are considered to be form of image analysis heuristics. > > Perhaps you could replace it with a more technologically agnostic statement > about user agents being permitted to use any other available techniques to > assist the user in comprehending the image, and perhaps make an informative > note about existing, widespread technologies like OCR, rather than hinting > at more futuristic technologies that are out of the realm of possibility for > most software companies today. This, specifically, I strongly support. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 16:17:26 UTC