- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:52:05 +0100
- To: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
David Poehlman wrote: > I think my answer is fairly clear, but I'll state it in concreet terms. > There seems to be an attitude and not here that accessibility is somehow up > to someone else other than those who can make it happen. It's either up to > the screen reader developpers, <wrong>, the users, <wrong> and you see where > this is headed. It's up to the authors, to use the relevant parts that need to be in the spec, which are then correctly picked up by screen readers / AT. But authors can't be coerced into doing the right thing simply by mandating the mechanism that, only if used properly, enhances accessibility, imho. > that the pain for > the many outweighs the needs of the few . The problem, it seems, is that the pain (failed validation?) won't automatically result in the correct behaviour (providing relevant @alt), but only in the minimum effort required to make the pain go away (putting *anything* into @alt, even adding a null @alt, just to get the thumbs-up from the validator). P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 23:52:54 UTC