W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > August 1999

longdesc and making text invisible [was PROPOSAL - 1.1.B, 4.3.A - 1st call

From: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:24:10 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hey Gregory!

Neat trick, to make an image the link to it's longdesc.  What do you do
recommend to provide a longdesc of an image which is already a link?

I don't understand though, why you use .hide, defined with foreground an
background both white, on that image, since there isn't any text to hide.
The text is ALT text which is hidden anyway.  Maybe this wasn't the actual
example you were thinking of... maybe the .hide here is a remnant from
earlier in this particular pages's history.

Also, what do you find annoying about d links?  BTW, your .hide would of
course make d links also invisible, tho no less annoying to screenreader
users, whatever that annoyance might be.

And a suggestion. Give .hide teensy weensy font size to take up less room,
thus currying greater acceptance amongst other web page designers who might
otherwise eschew this trick.


At 11:44 AM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>aloha, chris!
>speaking of interim solutions to expose the content of a LONGDESC, rather
>using a "D" link -- which i, as a screen-reader user have always found
>-- i have used style sheets to create a link to the LONGDESC of images on my
>in order to provide a link to the LONGDESC of the 2 purely decorative images
>        <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/silly.html>
>i defined
>        BODY.hide
>so that the background and foreground colors are the same...  before i raise
>the ire of others on the list for this practice,  with it's obvious
>limitations, let me hasten to point out that the rationale behind this
>stems from the fact that -- to my knowledge, no UA currently can be relied
>to respect the { display : none } property... 
>regardless of the obvious limitations of my particular use of CSS to hide
>text,  it does pass muster at the W3C's CSS Validator, albeit with the
>that for the element BODY.hide  the background and foreground colors are the
>besides, it works well with NetScape 4.x, MSIE 4.x, Opera 3.x, and Lynx --
>passing along the information to speech users and braille users (as well as
>those with graphics turned off) -- and i have heard nary a complaint from the
>posse of low vision users that i use to check my blindness-related pages for
>low vision compatibility -- not even those who are using a local style
sheet to
>change colors and effects to increase the contrast to their liking...
>it is also a tactic i have used when constructing (and reconstructing) online
>forms for commercial entities -- whist those footing the bills cringe at my
>adding excess verbiage such as (choose 1 of 7) inside a LEGEND, they don't
>if i "hide" the extra semantic information, which is still passed on to a
>screen reader or braille display, and which, naturally, appears in Lynx...
>of course, once { display : none } is implemented into mainstream browsers, i
>will change the style sheets at my sites accordingly, but for now, i consider
>hiding text by defining the same color for the foreground as for the
>of the BODY an acceptable interim solution
>He that lives on Hope, dies farting
>     -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1763
>Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
>   President, WebMaster, & Minister of Propaganda, 
>        VICUG NYC <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Universal Design Engineer, Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Adjunct Professor, Electrical Engineering
Temple University

Ritter Hall Annex, Room 423, Philadelphia, PA 19122
(215) 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)
Received on Wednesday, 18 August 1999 12:21:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:28 UTC