- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:14:48 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote: > > > > The image is the one in the spec: > > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/images/parsing-model-overview.png > > > > It really doesn't convey any more than the text given above. > > Then why are you using an image? Because representing things graphically can lead sighted users to a quicker understanding. > or are you suggesting that your document can exist without that image? Yes, absolutely. > Are you prepared to remove that image from the document then based upon > that certainty? The image helps sighted users. Why should we remove it? You seem to be of the opinion that the ideal situation is for people who cannot see images to be taunted by authors for not being able to view the images, even when the images don't convey anything more than is already conveyed by text that is provided as a complete replacement. Should we also let them know whenever the author decided to use rounded borders? Should blind users also be told the font faces that the author selected? After all, font faces and rounded corners can also help make a sighted user's experience more pleasurable and efficient; shouldn't blind people be told that they are missing out on such things too? > > As a text-only reader, I really *do not care* that there is an image > > here. The image doesn't add anything to the discussion; calling > > attention to it feels like the author laughing at me for not being > > able to see images. It frankly feels rude. > > Enough! Ok. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 07:15:24 UTC