- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:49:43 -0700
- To: annevk@opera.com, connolly@w3.org, mattmay@adobe.com
- CC: hsivonen@iki.fi, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
>From : Anne van Kesteren[mailto:annevk@opera.com] > I don't really see how this is fair. That there's disagreement over certain things related to accessibility doesn't mean that accessibility isn't taken seriously. It just means that not everyone is on the same side of the table when it comes to that subject. "that subject"? Is it possible that after a decade of attempts to integrate accessibility into design we are still in an us/them configuration? Accessibility to the Web is the cornerstone of the World Wide Web, not some bolted-on characteristic. When an attempt is made to sacrifice one of the "poster children" of the effort (the compulsory nature of the @alt), it will soon emerge that there are those of us for whom this "child" is as important as our own. No matter how hard one tries to disguise the implicit bigotry in this "war of @alt - now in it's second decade - the fact that keeps shining through is that <img> without required @alt is so unacceptable as to beggar understanding. The position that because there are cases in which its inclusion is inconvenient and deserves another round of justification for accessibility's seamless inclusion/integration is patently absurd. We are all in this together We are all members of one another Universal Connection/Accessibility is a Human Right. Love.
Received on Monday, 12 May 2008 23:50:52 UTC