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

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

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 10:51:59 -0500
Message-ID: <009001bf7fa8$4038c9c0$b040968e@ic.utoronto.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
Wendy,

We discussed:

> >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%, ..

It may be a small thing but, an image has different meanings in different
contexts. In your example chart what is the important information? The 1996
sales increases were different from the 1997? Sales were up in January.
Sales normally drop in February? The page that holds the image should
provide context for the image and guide the writing of the LONGDESC.

Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: replaced the phrase "complex images" (technique 1.1.2)


>
> 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 Friday, 25 February 2000 10:52:40 GMT

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