W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2012

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:36:31 -0700
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <7F30F549-0435-4353-856B-8A0B92A45FE3@apple.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On Sep 24, 2012, at 9:28 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> 
>>> you can't have it both ways:
>> 
>> Ah, but with @longdesc I do. Today.
>> 
>> I encourage you to go look at Dirk's example I've posted - by exposing the
>> linked content (using @longdesc to do the linking) then the long description
>> does indeed render an exposed, tab-focusable link. (here's the link:
>> http://blog.ginader.de/dev/jquery/longdesc/examples/webaim/index.php)
> 
> I've seen it and I've bought into this argument before, but Web
> developers don't want their browsers to put visual aids on their
> images (they can do that themselves) and therefore browsers don't want
> to implement this kind of visual encumbrance. It is wishful thinking
> and will never happen. The only thing you can do is lobby the Web
> developers themselves to create such, and you don't need a special
> attribute for that.

It does seem to me like the little (i) in a circle is reinventing d-links, and I thought the whole original reason for longdesc's existence was that content authors found the visual encumbrance  of d-links unacceptable. In fact, the InstateLongdesc Change Proposal explicitly states that lack of visual encumbrance in the normal presentation is required. I find myself confused at the promotion of a browser-imposed visual encumbrance for longdesc. If it is acceptable, then the author could overlay a visible link looking like the ittle (i) in a circle, reference it with aria-describedby, and be done. Am I misunderstanding some aspect of this discussion?

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2012 04:39:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 25 September 2012 04:39:44 GMT