W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2000

Re: replaced the phrase "complex images" (technique 1.1.2)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:17:43 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20000223170448.00bed100@localhost>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org

At 03:03 PM 2/23/00 , you wrote:
> > <blockquote>
> >...and a descriptive link...
> > </blockquote>
>
>I thought the D link was deprecated and we were not going to suggest using
>it??

it is deprecated but not invalid. if someone has provided a d-link they 
have satisfied the WCAG checkpoint 1.1.  Until "longdesc" is widely 
supported we will have to look for D-links.  We will have to deal with 
legacy as well - many sites use the D-link and will continue to do so 
regardless of how many browsers support "longdesc" because they want to be 
completely backwards compatible.  Therefore, if we find a d-link we could 
suggest that the tool alert the author that they could use "longdesc" 
instead.  d-link is still the most accepted technique for satisfying the 
"long description" checkpoint - today.

see http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#image-text-equivalent for 
more info.

> > <blockquote>
> >The amount of information in the image will determine how
> >detailed the description should be.
> > </blockquote>
>
>I thought the LONGDESC description should describe the image in relation to
>the document. It is not necessarily related to the image on its own.

I'm not sure I understand this comment.  The description of an image is 
very much related to the image on its own.  Here is an example from the 
WCAG HTML Techniques document:
A chart showing how sales in 1997 progressed. The chart
is a bar-chart showing percentage increases in sales
by month. Sales in January were up 10% from December 1996,
sales in February dropped 3%, ..

I used the information from the National Braille Association because they 
have been describing images in documents for decades (at least since 
1971).  Therefore, the description that they would provide for an image is 
very similar to what we want in a longdesc.  If the function of the image 
is to display a summary of information of sales from the last year, then 
that's what the long description should provide.

--wendy


>----- Original Message -----
>From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
>To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 1:12 PM
>Subject: replaced the phrase "complex images" (technique 1.1.2)
>
>
> > On the 14 February telecon we discussed how to decide when an image needs
>a
> > longdesc.  previously we said when an image was "complex."  in the call I
> > read some excerpts from the National Braille Association's Tape Recording
> > Manual.  We decided to incorporate those ideas to replace the phrase
> > "complex image."
> >
> > This is my proposal:
> > <blockquote>
> > IMG element should have a valid LONGDESC attribute and a descriptive link
> > if describing the image will add information not given in the text of the
> > page. The amount of information in the image will determine how detailed
> > the description should be.
> > </blockquote>
> >
> > --wendy
> > --
> > wendy a chisholm
> > world wide web consortium
> > web accessibility initiative
> > madison, wi usa
> > tel: +1 608 663 6346
> > /--

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 17:15:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:34 GMT