- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 23:23:58 -0800
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