- From: Anselm Hannemann - Novolo Designagentur <anselm@novolo.de>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:16:36 +0100
Okay, I talked with some disabled web developers and Accessibility experts today and talked about the proposal of markup in alt-text. This seems not to be a good idea as screenreader would read the tags which would confuse many users then. So we would get into trouble with that approach according to current screenreader features, etc. I think this should be postponed as it would need a whole rewrite to many (!) element-specs. We should now focus on the initial problem and let alt contents be plaintext for now. You might start a whole new discussion about this in a separate email but this would target all html-elements having alt-attributes. Am 08.02.2012 um 11:18 schrieb Kornel Lesi?ski: > On 8 lut 2012, at 07:14, Anselm Hannemann <anselm at novolo.de> wrote: >>>> <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. > > If my alternative text contains an abbreviation, shouldn't I be able to use <abbr>? > > If it's a comic strip, why should I be forbidden from marking up the dialog accurately? > > HTML already has in-element fallback for <object> and limited markup in <button>. > >>> <picture src="large.jpg" lowsrc="small.jpg"> <!-- or <source high-dpi-href="" or such> --> >>> alternative <em>text</em> >>> </picture> >>> >>> as it's going to be very hard to write a media query that takes into account various screen sizes, DPI and bandwidth/metering at the same time. >> >> This is similar to my approach using the common img-tag. In that case we don't need a new element. >> But as you've said many people (also here) find it a bit hard to write. Imagine using 6 different image sizes in that case? > > True. I like your approach too. > > I think for bandwidth-saving having more than 2-3 versions (50, 100, 300 dpi) is an overkill, so length of attributes won't be a problem. > >
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 09:16:36 UTC