- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:43:14 +0200
2007/4/19, Matthew Paul Thomas: > 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. +1 Thunderbird allows you to set 'alt' (by default, the "alternate text" option is active, if you don't fill it, a message pops up when you click "OK" inciting you to fill the field in, or select the "no alternate text" option, in which case an empty alt="" is generated). When you drag/drop an image into a message, the default is alt="". > 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). Yes there is: the Content-Description header. -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 06:43:14 UTC