W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

(unknown charset) Re: longdesc verbiage

From: (unknown charset) Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:10:22 +0200
To: (unknown charset) Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: (unknown charset) John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110510131022291209.5b7be72d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Laura Carlson, Mon, 9 May 2011 19:03:39 -0500:

> Do you think we should keep the images in the rendering spec text or
> delete them?

Plusses: each img has a @longdesc = exemplifies.
Minuses: the img-s are quite big - could have been made smaller. (Some 
or all of them display more browser chrome than strictly needed.)

Ideas: 

Could the images be edited so that at least each image pair is 
presented side by side? Then readers see their relationship faster. 

If you agree to that, then I'd suggest to also add two images for the 
context-menu example too, where the second image could show a 
"description window" in front of the main content window.

The last example, with 3 images, I would also suggest to have side by 
side.

To present them side by side, you could may be use an ordered list 
where the list items are inline blocks. Or may be you could use a 
table. Or - may be the simplest (except that you may then need to 
arrange the image caption differently) -  you can simply place the 
related IMG elements side by side - it seems the spec treats such 
images as inline images, so they would be rendered side by side. (I 
have looked through all the 23 images in the spec - see for instance 
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/interactive-elements#dom-details-open  - 
which has two images side by side.)
-- 
Leif H Silli
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 11:11:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT