W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:01:00 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0910271501s1af7522ase471ce20f239b6be@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, this was an overly broad statement. I should say that if two
>> features are both designed to solve the same problem, then we should
>> absolutely look at if both are really needed. In this case I see no
>> reason to keep both.
>>
>
> Problem Statement:
>
>        A complex image requires extended explanation to the non-sighted
> user. Corporate design guidelines do not allow a visible link to
> text-descriptions on screen, as the web-page interface is already too
> "busy" per the graphic design team and confirmed via '(sighted)
> user-testing'.
>
> Solution?

I answered this in the other email, but just to be clear:

<img aria-describedby="desc" src="...">
<a href="..." id="desc" hidden>

That's assuming the description is so big you don't want to include it
in the markup itself (or perhaps you want to reuse it across several
pages). Though in many cases I would say that the simpler solution
would be:

<img aria-describedby="desc" src="...">
<p id="desc" hidden>
  ...description here...
</p>

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 22:01:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:51 GMT