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 22:16:32 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OqCeW-00029b-33@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455





--- Comment #39 from Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>  2010-08-30 22:16:31 ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (1) The example above represent millions of images. Is it smart to let a
> substantially less common usecase stand in the way of the most common usecase?

When the less common use case represents a fundamental feature of hypertext?
Yeah, kinda.

I think all of the proposals presented so far are complicating the creation of
long descriptions to the point that just reverting to visible D-links will be
the standard case. I doubt that any assistive technology will implement support
for markup so complex that it's likely to be broken in many cases.

> I want to point out that for the code example above, the only link text
> is the @alt text. Thus the alt text has to serve a double cause: as link
> text and as @alt text.

That's the common case for alt text today. I don't know what problem this
solves. If there's alternate content that's not expressed in @alt, I believe it
should still be bound within the element, not in an <a> wrapper. Anchors are an
already well-defined semantic, and I don't like the idea of telling authors
that you can either link an image or provide a long description simply in the
name of expediency.

-- 
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 22:16:33 UTC

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