W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Is longdesc a good solution? (was: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>)

From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 23:34:05 -0400
Message-ID: <B77BD82E5D7E44998BC9B963FB3EDA26@HANDS>
To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>, "Philip TAYLOR \(Ret'd\)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Matt Morgan-May" <mattmay@adobe.com>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>, "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>

no.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Leif Halvard Silli" <lhs@malform.no>
To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
Cc: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>; "Henri 
Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>; "Matt Morgan-May" <mattmay@adobe.com>; "HTML WG" 
<public-html@w3.org>; "W3C WAI-XTECH" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: Is longdesc a good solution? (was: Acessibility of <audio> and 
<video>)


Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) 2008-09-09 20.07:

>
> Isn't "long replacement" exactly what
> fallback content is in <object> ?

I think so.

> David Poehlman wrote:
>> I was trying to say that @longdesc should contain an indepth
>> description and not be used as replacement.  We don't have anything
>> for long replacement that I know of.

If one used an <img> due to lack of relevant markup, e.g lack of
markup for diagrams or maps, then @longdesc can link to an indepth
description instead. Hence, we could say that we use @longdesc
because a real alt is not available. ;-)

In that sense I agree. However, had we used <object> and not
<img>, then that description would gone into the <object> fallback
instead. Hence @longdesc is still nothing but normal fallback.

Now, let's say that the "HP site map" of the HTML 4 example was
presented not as a graphic but as an animation (taking you through
all rooms at the HP estate) in a <video> element, then we would
have a case, where @longdesc could theoretically play an equal
role for <video> as in for <img>.

However, if <video> itself could present text fallback the way Jim
proposed it [1]:

<video><source src=animation.mov>
        <source src=#textversion></video>
<a id=textversion href=page.html>Map with description</a>

Then, would it still be a point in having a separate @longdesc for
the offering of an "indepth description"? I don't think so.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Sep/0288.html
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 03:34:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:23 GMT