- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:25:21 -0800
- To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: 'Matt May' <mattmay@adobe.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > I've had a go at writing a proposal for some alternative spec text to resolve this issue. > > --- > When the user is unable to make direct use of the image, e.g. due to a visual disability or because they are using a text terminal with no graphics capabilities, user agents may also provide the user with the ability to obtain any other information about the image that may assist the user in understanding its content or purpose, utilising any available repair technique. > > Such techniques may be based on information from any relevant source including, but not limited to, the following suggestions: > * Obtaining the file name from the URL reference or HTTP headers > supplied with the resource, such as the Content-Location or > Content-Disposition header fields. > * Extracting human readable metadata embedded within the resource. > e.g. EXIF, RDF or XMP. > * Referring to alternative text associated with another instance of the > same resource on the page. > * Applying OCR techniques to recognise and extract textual content that > is graphically represented on the image. > > For more information, refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines techniques for repairing missing content ([UAAG10-TECHS], section 2.7). > --- After seeing it, I think it might read better without the list of specific techniques. They are neat ideas but it seems too much detail for something that really is just implementation advice. The first and last bits sound good to me, at least. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 22 January 2010 15:25:57 UTC