W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Discussion on Change Proposal for ISSUE-66

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:16:39 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad1001210816w6b0ececm9a19e3a34e4fafae@mail.gmail.com>
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.

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2010 16:17:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:08 UTC