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

Re: My case for the obsoletion of longdesc (Was: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 01:11:23 +0200
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120927011123100050.9b622f8d@xn--mlform-iua.no>
James Craig, Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:21:54 -0700:
> On Sep 24, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> ]] this will cause links to open in the parent browsing context
>>  unless an explicit self-navigation override is used (target="_self")[[
>> With @seamless, then AT probably ought to not announce that it is a 
>> iframe, which sounds like an advantage to me. (But I might be taking my 
>> mouth to full, there, about how AT will react to it.)
> One of the goals of that proof-of-concept is to make it so that you 
> don't have to access the "long description" unless you explicit drill 
> into it, like @longdesc. Using @seamless would prevent that benefit 
> to using an iframe.

OK. I had not thought about that. Clever thought.
>> Thus, you see 'iframe' and 'longdesc' 
>> as more ore less 'equally bad', except that iframe has wider support. 
>> You probably do not expect iframe to be much used either, I suspect-
> That's a fair assessment.
> All wise recommendations. I don't want to commit myself to creating a 
> WCAG technique for iframe-linked long descriptions, because as you 
> noted, I think this isn't a much better approach than @longdesc, but 
> I would commit myself to review your forays into this technique if 
> you felt inclined to create some.

Good to know. For others as well. ;-) And thanks for frank answers.
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 23:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:31 UTC