- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:11:08 +0200
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Web Notification WG <public-web-notification@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > I don't know why you think it is unnecessary, so I will explain why I think > it is. > > The reason I think it is valuable is that good content will often not have > equivalent redundant text for the icon where it is rendered, but will > provide an equivalent for where it isn't. Think of icons in email apps, rich > editors, banking applications and the like. If you have a rich icon set > there is a text alternative that only renders if you turn off the icons or > if the user asks for it (e.g. a tooltip on mouseover) because it is hard to > guess what the icon means the first time you see it. > > Obviously, if icons are used for information users who rely on voice output > will need to have something to replace the icon. This sounds reasonable, but do native notification platforms support such functionality? Or are authors better of including the relevant information in the title somehow? -- Anne — Opera Software http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 13:11:40 UTC