- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:55:31 -0700
- To: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
At 14:02 +0100 25/08/08, Philip TAYLOR wrote: >Ian Hickson wrote: > >>The meaning of the page is unchanged whether the image is present >>or absent. That's basically the _definition_ of purely decorative. >> >>What possible benefit could a blind user get from knowing that >>there is a picture present that he can't see? We're not trying to >>taunt people here. The page is a poem, that's the sole purpose of >>the page, to convey that poem. > >No, Ian, the page is /not/ a poem : it is a poem >plus a picture. Surely you can see that. I think you are missing something fundamental. The author is the only person who can answer the question "is the semantics of what wish to convey reduced if the image is not seen?". If the author says "no, it is not", then who are we to second-guess him (or her)? In the hypothetical case posited, the author wished to convey the text of the poem. In order to make the page prettier or something, he decided to put a picture on there for those who were consuming the content visually. Only the page author can satisfactorily answer the question of what is semantically significant. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 17:56:31 UTC