W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2011

Re: ISSUE-30 longdesc - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:27:55 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTik6m25V2f-7t71doMuxmZ_LoC2bcA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi all,

On 6/16/11, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:54:07 +0200, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> WebAIM recommends using a duplicate link if using
>> longdesc. Longdesc is not available to all users, so you cannot rely
>> on it to deliver a "a reliable and effective user experience."
>
> I understand the recommendation for a duplicate link.

Yes. In other words, redundant link text attempts to mitigate damages
of user agents that do not yet have a long description feature built
directly into them. Because longdesc it is not yet supported by some
web browsers, some sites provide a fallback method of providing a full
description via redundant link text. With proper implementation in
user agents these could all be solely longdesc. In addition, these
types of link text approaches don't semantically or programmatically
tie the description to image, whereas a longdesc does.

Best Regards,
Laura
-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 18:28:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:33 GMT