Re: Image Question

Well, on the one hand Nick is right - anything that works as described
doesn't manage to handle HTML sufficiently well to be considered a working
implementation.

On the other hand, that doesn't stop people using things that give them some
benefit sometimes. This is an issue that won't go away, unfortunately. Unless
it is not possible to produce an imperfect tool people will use them, and
allowing for development means allowing for mistakes.

But if these people were selling their product to me I might argue as a
consumer that it doesn't do what is advertised, and they should provide new
copies to people who have paid for the product, which do the job properly.
Which may or may not actually have a useful outcome.

I might also choose a different product. Or write my own repair for it. Or
even just live with the problem. The real world is like that.

just my very personal approach to life.

cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Nick Kew wrote:

>
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, John Foliot - bytown internet wrote:
>
>> I have come across the following statement:
>>
>> "We have discovered a "bug" in a major assistive system.
>
>Is there a source for this?  If you think it's a credible source,
>can you ask them what they're talking about?
>
>> If the alt-tag is in any other position, some screen-readers will not find
>> or interpret it."
>
>That's absurd.  It implies a parser tied together with sellotape,
>and a level of profound brokenness warranting instant dismissal
>from consideration as a product.
>
>Was the statement dated April 1st?
>
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ---------------- WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia       fax(fr) +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 22:18:37 UTC