W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > July 2007

RE: Comment LC-1074

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 02:13:02 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007a01c7bfe8$8a59d750$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

I am happy to close this comment

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com] 
Sent: Saturday, 7 July 2007 2:04 AM
To: Gian Sampson-Wild
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comment LC-1074

This comment referred to SC 1.1.1

Loretta

On 7/6/07, Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au> wrote:
> Comment 51:
>
> Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/001f01c695f9$31b504e0$9288b23a@tkhcomputer
> (Issue ID: LC-1074)
>
> Example 3: Why isn't a long description required?
>
> Proposed Change:
>
> Add to example that a long description is required which gives the same
> information as the image
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ----------------------------
>
> Since the animation is fully explained in text a longdesc would be
redundant
> and end up having the user who is blind listening to the description
twice.
> So the alternate text provides a short description and mentions that the
> animation is described in the text that follows it.
>
> ----------------------------
> Response from GSW:
> ----------------------------
> Can you please tell me which SC this refers to?
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 16:13:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 17 October 2017 07:46:01 UTC