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

Re: ERT 1.1.B

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 13:31:07 -0400
Message-ID: <008001bef632$1b315c50$b040968e@ic.utoronto.ca>
To: "Chris Kreussling" <CHRIS.KREUSSLING@ny.frb.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Perhaps the language is not clear. The intention is to suggest an existing
LONGDESC for a file that does not have a LONGDESC.

If the same image is used in two places on a site and one image has a
LONGDESC while the other does not, suggest that the image without the
LONGDESC use the LONGDESC from the image that has one.

Does that make sense?

Chris R.

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Kreussling <CHRIS.KREUSSLING@ny.frb.org>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: ERT 1.1.B


> >>> <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> 09/03 9:34 AM >>>
> Please take a look at these two techniques in the ERT document. If they
look
> OK, they will stand and we can move on to the next techniques:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/#Technique1.1.B
> ...
> <<<
>
> The third and last list item under "Repair Technique:" seems to be missing
something:
>
> "Repair Technique:
>
> ...  If another document on the same site uses the same image and has a
LONGDESC, suggest that LONGDESC file."
>
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 13:31:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:33 GMT