Re: Flickr and alt

actually, david is a clutz who perhaps doesn't know how to spell precedent. 
I see that the meaning was not lost however <cackle!>

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
To: "Philip TAYLOR" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>; "David Poehlman" 
<david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" 
<wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Flickr and alt



Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> That is a rather rude observation, Boris : if (as I believe)
> David is unable to see what he types, his speech synthesiser
> may well render "president" as aurally indistinguishable
> from "precedent".

Interesting.  That had not occurred to me, since in fact they are quite
aurally distinguishable in all the pronunciations I've heard.  If there
are others of which I was not aware, I apologize.

>  > [A]ll authors [1] must be forced (whether by civil laws or by
> authoring specifications) to produce only content that is accessible to
> all users [2].
>
> No, not "forced".  "Required", "expected", whatever.

These are different things, though.  I can accept "required", but
"expected" is not the same thing at all (should vs must in RFC-speak).
I stand by my statement that this is not a reasonable requirement.  I do
think it's a reasonable expectation.

> then no-one is planning to "force" that user to do otherwise,

I have heard several proposals that the spec require all UAs, including
graphical ones, not provide any rendering for <img> elements that lack
@alt.  So I'm not sure your statement is correct.  Not that I think
these proposals are going to go anywhere, but "no-one" is a stretch.

-Boris

Received on Sunday, 24 August 2008 16:38:56 UTC