W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Re: AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 21 June 2004 - Minutes

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 12:33:39 +0200
Message-ID: <001301c45844$773d1a10$0200a8c0@iwars>
To: "Karen Mardahl" <karen@mardahl.dk>, <"karen@mardahl.dk"@hydra.securehosting.dk>, "'List WAI-AUWG'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Mardahl" <karen@mardahl.dk>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>;
<"karen@mardahl.dk"@hydra.securehosting.dk>; "'List WAI-AUWG'"
<w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: SV: Re: AUWG Teleconference on Monday, 21 June 2004 - Minutes



Hi Roberto

It's my understanding that what Jan specifically wanted to ask WCAG
about
was - how to describe the red circles. E.g. sighted and non-sighted
people
could be discussing an illustration and a sighted person says something
like
"the red highlighted part is good", making a visual comment that the
non-sighted person is not aware of. So I think we are looking for advice
on
how best to write these longdescs. Where is the fine balance between not
too
little and not too much? And how can we encourage good authoring of a
longdesc?!

Roberto Scano:
All depends if blind people are blind since they was born or if they
become blind. Btw, every blind knows what means "circle".
I wanna suggest to leave only longdesc and remove [d] link that create a
ripetition of links with the same link title and these are no good for
accessibility throught screen readers (and, btw, we have "deprecated"
them in WCAG 2.0 HTML Techniques).
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 06:34:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:49 UTC