W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > February 2012

[whatwg] add html-attribute for "responsive images"

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:23:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBBYNM+y6VJ-tXFoJuCBngFAw-pSD_ShvjLNR3=wwKGyg@mail.gmail.com>
2012/2/7 Anselm Hannemann <anselm at novolo.de>:
> Am 08.02.2012 um 01:54 schrieb Kornel Lesi?ski:
>> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:49:16 -0000, David Goss <dvdgoss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess I've moved away from similarities with <video>, in that I've
>>> been thinking of the <img> as the default content, not the fallback
>>> content. Going with your angle for a simple example with two sizes:
>>>
>>> <picture alt="alternative text" src="default.jpg">
>>> ?<source href="large.jpg" media="min-width:700px" />
>>> ?<img alt="alternative text" src="default.jpg" />
>>> </picture>
>>
>> A new element may be an opportunity to get the "alt" right, i.e. in element's body, not flattened in an attribute.
>
> Is there a reason for this? I think this is more confusing than everything else. And, an alternative text shouldn't have markup.
> Alternative text should be all for accessibility. What you thinking about might be the title-attribute. But I'm totally against this approach to do this inside the element w/o attribute.
> And I think screenreader won't be happy with that, too? (not sure about that).

No, definitely not.  @alt is useful for accessibility, yes, but it's
also useful even for sighted people if the image is temporarily
unavailable.  I have found this ability useful in several concrete
instances in my webdev career.

Having the ability to do structured fallback would be even better.

Screenreaders only have a problem insofar as they don't currently have
the ability to recognize such markup, because it doesn't exist yet.
There's nothing theoretically difficult about it, though.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 23:23:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:39 UTC