W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > September 2012

RE: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:01:32 +0000
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0CB063710346B446A5B5DC305BF8EA3E26EE41@Ex2010MBX.development.algonquinstudios.com>
> From: Kornel Lesiński [mailto:kornel@geekhood.net]
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:10:00 +0100, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> > So, how would the hyperlink in this example work for *all* users?
> I disagree with premise of this question. I don't think it should work for all
> users.
> If the link is in alternative content, then by definition it is intended only for
> users who cannot see the picture, e.g. it could be a link to longdesc-type of
> page that contains no useful information for sighted users.

By definition "the value must be an appropriate replacement for the image." It does not say it is solely for users who cannot see the picture (

> The link should be inaccessible to sighted users in the same way <img
> alt="text"> is inaccessible.

There are many cases where a sighted user access @alt text. The biggest one is when the referenced file is missing. Other cases include bad/dropped connections, bad reference (404), unsupported file format, corrupt file, and a mean game of hide-and-seek.

Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:02:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 September 2012 20:02:09 GMT