- From: Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@myrealbox.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:35:31 +1200
On Apr 19, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > ... > For the various reasons discussed in this thread, I cannot think of a > real justification for making a mail client that breaks one of the > basic accessibility features that people understand better than most > others. And I can think of plenty of reasons for not doing so. > ... As Benjamin said, it's worthwhile entering alt= text when sending to many recipients, and/or to unknown recipients; that is why alt= is important for public Web pages (where you don't know who is going to read a page) and for Intranets (where if a blind person joins the company tomorrow, they shouldn't be impeded by lack of alt= text on existing pages). But it seems likely that the vast majority of non-spam e-mail messages are sent to individuals who are known by the sender to be fully-sighted. In that case putting up an interface for entering alt= text, *just in case* the recipient gets struck blind before they get around to reading the message, seems a bit unreasonable. It would also be weird for a mail client to ask for alternate text for images in HTML messages (because HTML requires it), but not for images in multipart/mixed plain-text messages (because there's nowhere to put it). -- Matthew Paul Thomas http://mpt.net.nz/
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 05:35:31 UTC