Re: the fallicy of the term "fallback content"

equivelent content would be best, we used to have conditional content  
while not perfect at least did not detract from its ability to be  
primary content because under that term, everything was conditional  

On Jun 25, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:

aloha, all -- there is a recurring term that keeps resurfacing on
he HTML WG's discussions as regards graphical images:

fallback content

remember that one person's fallback content, is another's (in this
case, my) primary content...

i understand that fallback content is also used by those whose
software or hardware or connection will not allow the rendering
of images, and therefore he or she can fall back on the rich
content to obtain equivalent information about the unsupported
image type, but in this case, as well, it isn't really a true
fallback -- from the user's perspective, it's primary content...

besides, it should be up to the user how the longdesc should be
rendered -- i've suggested a setting that would replace the
image with the contents of a longdesc, in a sidebar, in an IFrame
(shudder), and so on.

and what of those whose visual acuity is in decline, or when
a user encounters what he or she perceives as a blurry image --
these users, too, need the rich content longdesc can describe,
but may also want to read the context and description in
parallell, in order to make sense of the image being


LANGUAGE, n.  The music with which we charm the serpents guarding
another's treasure.     -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
            Gregory J. Rosmaita,
     Camera Obscura:
UBATS: United Blind Advocates for Talking Signs:

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 17:16:03 UTC