- From: james nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:11:57 -0700
- To: public-pfwg@w3.org
On 10/4/2013 4:33 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 20:15:46 +0100, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> > wrote: > >> If you have objections, questions, additions, or edits to propose, >> please respond to this email no later than close of business Boston time >> Friday 4 October. > >> James Nurthen writes: > >>> * The API specifies the ability to supply an icon without the ability >>> to specify any text alternative for the icon. The Spec should make >>> clear that the message supplied must make sense even if the icons >>> are not available. > > I think our experience suggests that people *will* use the icons to > have meaning that is not communicated independently of the icon. I > suggest that we actually need an ability to provide alternative > content for the icon. Having redundant information in the notification > itself makes no sense - space in notifications is typically at a > premium, so this would represent pretty second-rate design. Chaals, I agree with your comment. My previous experience has been that asking for a change like this is normally met with resistance but I do agree that we should ask for it nonetheless. Regards, James > > Given that notifications are created in JS more or less in real time, > a plain string is enough (assuming that the internationalisation story > is really correct). > > cheers > > Chaals >
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 18:12:26 UTC