W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc]

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:35:13 -0700
Message-ID: <4F690621.4060305@jumis.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On 3/20/12 3:27 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> >  We're insisting on accessible ingress as well as accessible
>> >  internal architecture. What use is an accessible restaurant if you can't
>> >  get inside?
> What use is a description of the front door, if I am unable to consume what they actually serve?  "Oh, I'm sorry you are starving, but at least you knew that it was a beautiful front door, all lovely blue, with little clouds painted on it."

First, that's useful information, it engages the reader, it includes the 
person whether sighted or non, in the narrative.

Second, "as well as accessible internal architecture", means what it 
says. The door, as well as the inside, should be made available.

We're arguing about the doorway at the request of several 
vendor-developers. I don't particularly know why there is such 
push-back. It doesn't require much in the way of coding. It's not 
semantically bloated, it's just one word in a rather large vocabulary.


-Charles
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 22:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:47 GMT