W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > July to September 1998

Re: 1st draft of reference card

From: Geoff Freed <Geoff_Freed@wgbh.org>
Date: 3 Aug 1998 09:54:48 -0400
Message-ID: <n1309983701.84077@wgbh.org>
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Cc: "Stella O'Brien" <smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk>
        Reply to:   RE>>1st draft of reference card

Thanks for your clarifications.  A couple more comments:

>...I put in the 5 word limit to cope
>with situations where the author has specified the height and width of an
>image placeholder in such a way as to overlap the space for the alt text
>and obscure some of the text. Any strong feelings on whether or not this is
>an obselete or unnecessary consideration?

GF:
Hmmm... since it's not possible to know how much height and width has been allocated for any specific graphic, it's not possible to know how much space will be available for alt text.  Five words might even be too many.  But keep in mind that IE 4+ and Netscape 4+ both allow users to expand alt-text boxes to accommodate the full alt-text.  Users have to know about this feature, of course...

>...So, on the 80 20 principle, I opted for d-link and "rel" as it
>seems most relevant now - although it can be updated to longdesc as
>appropriate when it is widely supported. 

GF:
Sounds good to me.

Geoff Freed
Project Manager, Web Access Project
CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
WGBH Educational Foundation
geoff_freed@wgbh.org 

--------------------------------------
Date: 7/30/98 5:37 PM
To: Geoff Freed
From: Stella O'Brien
 I should have explained

1 this draft of a reference card is an attempt to clarify my thinking as to
what might be appropriate and I posted it to the list as an outcome from
today's EO IG conference call and as a follow up to Friday 24th discussion
in Peterborough

2 my references to the formatting apply solely to the text as it appears in
the email - I was concerned that I wouldn't have removed all of the section
breaks, fonts, styles etc. that I had used in my own working version - and
that the lack of formatting styles would make it difficult to navigate.

>GF:  I'd leave out the five-word limit, since someone might take this as a
>browser >limitation.   Instead say something like, "...write a concise
>description of a few words >or a short sentence...," which offers more
>flexibility.

In response to GF's comment I agree, but I put in the 5 word limit to cope
with situations where the author has specified the height and width of an
image placeholder in such a way as to overlap the space for the alt text
and obscure some of the text. Any strong feelings on whether or not this is
an obselete or unnecessary consideration?

>GF:  In the GL group, there's a l-o-n-g debate raging about LONGDESC vs
>the d-link.  >Before recommending the d-link, I'd review the guidelines
>and arguments for both >(available at w3.org/wai/gl).  Personally, I think
>both should be supported, since >pre-5.0 browsers won't handle LONGDESC.

 I opted for d-link here as a current and backwards compatibility
compromise - I don't think there is room to include both in a reference
card / flyer. I consulted the PA GL which were used in Peterborough on
Saturday 25th July, and they recommended that "When most browsers in use
support longdesc use longdesc. Until then use d-links [Priority 1]. ... If
you use both "longdesc" and d-link or if you use "rel" to link the image
and d-link, a tool under development will be able to convert d-links to
"longdesc" and / or OBJECTS as well as remove d-links automatically is
desired". So, on the 80 20 principle, I opted for d-link and "rel" as it
seems most relevant now - although it can be updated to longdesc as
appropriate when it is widely supported. The PA GL reference to the
automated tool for converting d-link and "rel" seemed to offer the promise
of a currently working technique which would not represent an expensive
maintenance overhead or require extensive retro-fitting.

>GF:  Actually, it's best to include the e-mail address *in* the link
>itself, like this:

Agreed, Geoff. I'll update this version.



Best wishes - Stella



------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by wgbh.org with ADMIN;30 Jul 1998 17:35:48 +0000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA07050;
	Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 17:30:55 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <199807302130.RAA07050@www19.w3.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.27] claimed to be post.mail.demon.net
X-Sender: lioness@pop3.demon.co.uk
Message-Id: <l03130303b1e69b53f699@[158.152.28.240]>
In-Reply-To: <n1310306503.92245@wgbh.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 22:28:33 +0000
To: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
From: "Stella O'Brien" <smo-brien@lioness.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: 1st draft of reference card
Resent-From: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> archive/latest/76
X-Loop: w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
Sender: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-eo-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Received on Monday, 3 August 1998 10:01:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 10:33:24 GMT