W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

[Bug 10455] Mint a describedby attribute for the img element

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:05:54 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Oq8jy-0007h7-LP@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455





--- Comment #31 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>  2010-08-30 18:05:54 ---
(In reply to comment #28)

>Statement: the choice between rel="longdesc" and rel="alternate" is more easily
>made if one can use the anchor/area element for both link types. This is not an
>argument _against_ @longdesc. I just think that if @rel="longdesc" exists, then
>authors' thinking about these things will improve. I think especially the case
>that @longdesc links are typically duplicated, is an argument in favor of
>adding @rel="longdesc" to the HTML language, so that authors can get the same
>feature by use of a normal link.

rel="longdesc" couls possibly be useful when it comes to the use duplicate,
redundant anchor links in combination with @longdesc. For example, if we have
this:

<a rel="longdesc" href="link-A"><img longdesc="link-A" src="*" alt="*"/></a>

the perhaps JAWS, which do support @longdesc,  would be able to avoid
presenting the same link twice. it just has to compare the rel="longdesc" links
against the @longdesc links and come up with a way to eliminate duplicate link
presentation.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 18:05:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:13 UTC