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

Re: User Testing footage of header/id combinations, @summary and @longdesc for HTML5 WG

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:23:09 -0500
Message-Id: <88525BC4-229A-4A22-A8D4-2FC3A4FE9956@robburns.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
To: Eric Eggert <w3c@yatil.de>

Hi Eric,

On Sep 14, 2007, at 7:25 AM, Eric Eggert wrote:

>
> Tomas Caspers, an German accessibility expert, wanted me to share  
> his thoughts about the @longdesc topic with you. He's referring to  
> this WHAT WG blog entry: http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery
>
> Here are Tomas’ thoughts:
>
    [ A few anecdotes about the 'longdesc' attribute ....]
>
> Conclusion: I'm sorry folks, but I'm afraid you will have to come  
> up with something else other than longdesc.

I don't really understand how anyone can go from Thomas's few  
interesting anecdotes to that conclusion. The longdesc attribute is  
there to provide a long description of an image embedded with an IMG  
element. In many cases it may not be useful at all to provide a long  
description. However, for authors that do provide long descriptions  
it is an indispensable attribute. For the users who make use of the  
attribute and its referenced document fragment it undoubtedly  
enhances their user experience.

So I have to ask the question. How does Thomas go from his anecdotes  
to the conclusion that we folks must come up with something else  
other than lohgdesc? What would that something else do? Make the  
blind see? I really don't see what he's saying at all in relation to  
the work of this WG. I don't even understand how anything Thomas  
wrote could be related to a decision about whether to include a  
longdesc attribute or not in HTML5.

Take care,
Rob
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 13:23:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC