Re: @alt descriptions for Thing Descriptions

On 14/06/2019 22:30, Janina Sajka (janina@rednote.net) wrote:
> Yeah, another route is for us to give them a heads up and to offer that
> we'll help get the text and markup figured out for best effect. I can't
> imagine they'd object to that. I'm only concerned that we say something
> soon, before they move to PR.

Yup, +1 to flagging it either way.

Thanks

Josh


>
> Janina
>
> Joshue O Connor writes:
>> On 14/06/2019 19:00, John Foliot wrote:
>>
>>> But again, I'm not getting any practical utility from it (but... I really
>>> want to ensure that "Link class" is a direct label to the list, and not an
>>> inferred one. Janina, am I going too far? Does making "Link class" a nested
>>> header help any further (feels wrong to me, but...))
>> I urge caution with this, as the descriptions are designed to be read 'as
>> is' and not designed to be interrogated the way you would a data table and
>> its contents or similar. To structure this content with that goal in mind
>> requires a slightly different approach and brings up questions of user agent
>> support and formats.
>>
>> FYI, these alternatives can be marked up as static items, and the preferred
>> semantics can be discussed, but I designed each figure alternative so it can
>> be read in a rather linear fashion by a screen reader user without the need
>> for complex relationship description.
>>
>> I hope this helps clarify my intention.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>> I know, I know... John, put down the coffee, you've had enough... (in the
>>> end, semantic markup is the goal - at least for me Josh)
>> -- 
>> Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)

-- 
Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)

Received on Saturday, 15 June 2019 12:33:17 UTC