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

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:09:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4D8DD767.9050204@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 03/25/2011 10:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> So far I have seen no reason to believe that longdesc is going to be
> used in a much better way the next 10 years than it has the past 10
> years. If that's the case then we really aren't helping anyone. I'd
> like to actually make the web better.

In the original decision[1], the incorrect usages argument was found to 
be weak.  Specifically "no evidence was provided that it would be 
difficult or impossible for user agents to identify and make good use of 
correct usage."  Any evidence that people have either way on this point 
would be helpful.

More directly to Jonas's point above, I note that if one visits a site 
that correctly uses longdesc and right-mouse-clicks on such an image 
using a recent version of Opera one sees an option to obtain the Long 
Description of the image (see attached image).  Does this change things?

- Sam Ruby

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html


longdesc.png
(image/png attachment: longdesc.png)

Received on Saturday, 26 March 2011 12:09:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT