- From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:51:53 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, John Gregg <johnnyg@google.com>, Drew Wilson <atwilson@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Message-ID: <bbeaa26f1002231351kc9e7680ib50f252d5505e42c@mail.gmail.com>
Am 23. Februar 2010 13:44 schrieb Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>: > 2010/2/23 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>: > > Am 23. Februar 2010 12:11 schrieb Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > >> > >> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:20:13 +0100, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) > >> <ifette@google.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> CreateInteractiveNotification(in DOMString text-fallback, [Optional] in > >>> DOMString MimeType1, [Optional] in DOMString NotificationFormat1, > >>> [Optional] > >>> in DOMString MimeType2, [Optional] NotificationFormat2, ...) > >>> > >>> forgive my broken IDL, I'm sure there's a better way to express it, but > >>> you get the idea. > >> > >> I don't see why it cannot be just a URL. If the user agent "supports" > the > >> type it will render it and it will fail otherwise. There's no need for > >> complex multi-level fallback here in my opinion, nobody is going to > bother > >> with that anyway. > > > > <video> has multi-level fallback, so there is precedent for better or > worse. > > That said, specifying a (set of) URL(s) may be fine, but I think it would > > still be nice for a UA to have fallback options. Is everyone going to use > > it? Probably not, but I think people that actually care would. E.g. if I > > have a property that I expect people on mobile devices to go to, I will > make > > sure that it works on mobile devices, exactly as we do with properties > today > > where we reasonably expect mobile users. > > Yes, there are several features, such as <video> and <img> that have > fallback. However this is because there is no alternative other than > simply not introducing these features. I.e. we can't redesign <video> > in such a way that fallback for blind people isn't needed, due to > inherit visual properties of <video>. > > The same is not true for the suggest notification API. Several > proposals have been put forward that do not rely on fallback. > > I'm sure that if you ask any blind person they will tell you that the > amount of fallback provided for <img> is no where near enough. And I'm > fairly certain this isn't due to the fact that the majority of web > authors don't care about blind people. > > So while I agree with some of your arguments, I don't at all buy the > argument that "there are other features out there that use fallback, > so it's ok here too", or "if people care, they'll provide fallback". > > / Jonas > That's not really an accurate restating of my position. I am saying "if no text fallback is specified, let's try to create one from what is given to us." Unlike with video and images, we actually have a reasonable chance of being able to create something intelligible here. Not perfect, but a lot different from the case of "here's an image with no alt text, now I will just cry."
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 21:52:25 UTC