- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Sat, 23 May 1998 12:59:52 +1000 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Right now I am using a text-only connection to read my mail and browse. When I come to a page designed as Liam describes, I will have no ideas what that page will be like if I swap to a full PPP connection and a graphical browser. Let alone knowing what the objects I cannot see are. This is discrimination on a massive scale. It is also the antithesis of portability/interoperabiliity - it is creating various classes of user, allowing each to imagine they are the only class of user, and not letting them know if ther is something they are missing - an intensely authoritarian approach to information dissemination. Charles McCathieNevile On Fri, 22 May 1998, Liam Quinn wrote: > At 12:01 PM 22/05/98 -0700, Waddell, Cynthia wrote: > >Regarding D-links- > >What about making them the same color of the background? The screenreader > >will still see it. > > LQ:: I don't want the screenreader to see it unless the user of the > screenreader explicitly asks for it. D-links describe what images look > like and thus tell the non-visual user that she's viewing a visual page. > As an author, I want every user to think that the page is made specifically > for her, so I don't want the non-visual user to get distracting remnants of > anything visual. > > The description linked to by a D-link is not important for communicating > the content of a page. The content of the image is expressed by the ALT > attribute in the case of the IMG element and by the element content in the > case of OBJECT. > > -- > Liam Quinn > Web Design Group Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development > http://www.htmlhelp.com/ http://enhanced-designs.com/ > >
Received on Friday, 22 May 1998 23:20:20 UTC