- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:37:29 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
Smylers wrote: >> Davids suggested tooltip attribute ain't a bad idea. It would remove >> any ambiguity for authors as in @tooltip="visual tooltip", >> @title="useful for additional information for not visual users", >> @alt="alternate textual description here". > > No it wouldn't. [...] Fair enough. My suggestion was on the foot of Davids' idea and I was thinking primarily about authors (bless) as there is so much talk on this list about making it easier for them - lest their brains burst no doubt. > And having something as presentational as tooltip output being specified > in HTML creates problems for all those user-agents which can't include > tooltips. Ok. > all those user-agents which can't include >> tooltips. Just out of curiosity, could you list a few? As that reads to me - user-agents which don't support @alt or @title? Am I picking you up wrongly? Tooltips are not about to go away (unless you wish to lobby browser manufacturers to no longer render these @'s as tooltips), and many authors still wrongly think of them as the 'tooltip thing'. What I *do* think would be useful is if @title could being rendered by the browser visually when the link receives focus via the keyboard and not just onMouseover. If this bug/feature ain't going away then why not at least stretch it to be more useful? Some users with limited mobility or users with intellectual or cognitive disabilities _may_ find this feature useful as there would be - rendered onscreen - additional information that may explain the purpose of the link to them. > What scenarios can you think of where an image would 'require' a tooltip > and where title isn't sufficient? Not many, in truth, off hand anyway. Josh
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 12:38:02 UTC