W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re: rationale for preserving longdesc in HTMLx [Re: dropping longdesc attribute]

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:18:37 +0100
Message-ID: <4684DC7D.8040309@cfit.ie>
To: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org

Bill Mason wrote:
> ...this is completely irrelevant LONGDESC, unless the site's audience is
> readers interested in the history and evolution of flags. 

I think its fair to say that this audience would have had a fondness for

> Given that LONGDESC is for:
> * "...a long description of the image. This description should
> supplement the short description provided using the alt attribute." [1]
> * "...complex content (e.g., a chart) where the "alt" text does not
> provide a complete text equivalent...." [2]
> * "[providing] information in a file designated by the longdesc
> attribute when a short text alternative does not adequately convey the
> function or information provided in the image." [3]
> The history of the flag has nothing to do with its function/purpose on
> the page as an HTML element, does not fulfill a need not being handled
> by the short description, and arguably the image shouldn't even be on
> the page as an HTML element. 

The point is that the LONGDESC should provide a mechanism for far more
detailed information than @alt. @alt is supposed to be short some say up
to 50 characters some 100 [1] [2], there is no ceiling AFAIK but the
consensus is certainly that it should be short, so LONGDESC is to
provide the user with a longer more detailed description. You may
disagree with how the example was constructed to illustrate this point
but surely the reasoning is fairly sound?


Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 10:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC