2012/2/7 Anselm Hannemann <ans...@novolo.de>: > Am 08.02.2012 um 01:54 schrieb Kornel Lesiński: >> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 14:49:16 -0000, David Goss <dvdg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I guess I've moved away from similarities with <video>, in that I've >>> been thinking of the <img> as the default content, not the fallback >>> content. Going with your angle for a simple example with two sizes: >>> >>> <picture alt="alternative text" src="default.jpg"> >>> <source href="large.jpg" media="min-width:700px" /> >>> <img alt="alternative text" src="default.jpg" /> >>> </picture> >> >> A new element may be an opportunity to get the "alt" right, i.e. in >> element's body, not flattened in an attribute. > > Is there a reason for this? I think this is more confusing than everything > else. And, an alternative text shouldn't have markup. > Alternative text should be all for accessibility. What you thinking about > might be the title-attribute. But I'm totally against this approach to do > this inside the element w/o attribute. > And I think screenreader won't be happy with that, too? (not sure about that).
No, definitely not. @alt is useful for accessibility, yes, but it's also useful even for sighted people if the image is temporarily unavailable. I have found this ability useful in several concrete instances in my webdev career. Having the ability to do structured fallback would be even better. Screenreaders only have a problem insofar as they don't currently have the ability to recognize such markup, because it doesn't exist yet. There's nothing theoretically difficult about it, though. ~TJ
