W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Identifying D-links with "rel"

From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 13:02:09 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980608130209.00a5e8d0@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
At 03:02 PM 08/06/98 +0200, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>
>As Jon reminded us, there is a potential use for a better speficied
>dlink for OBJECT, where we don't have a LONGDESC.
>
>e.g.
>
> <OBJECT data=foo.gif>
>   This is a short desc for a foo (<A href=foo.htm rel=dlink>long
>   description</A> available) 
> </OBJECT>

The content of the OBJECT element should be a replacement for the object,
not a description of it.  When we mix alternative content with
descriptions, we force the user to think visually (assuming the
descriptions are visual, as we know they are) when the user may not want to
do that.  We need separate methods of giving alternatives and descriptions
to allow UAs to give users exactly what they want.

Think of an embedded logo, say the one at the beginning of
<http://www.htmlhelp.com/>.  This image has alternative text, "The Web
Design Group", to communicate the information contained in the object.  The
image could also be given a title, "Web Design Group Logo", which acts as a
short description in this (and most) cases.  The image might also have a
long description:  "The Web Design Group's logo shows the letters W, D, and
G in black next to a picture of the Earth..."

Different users may want some or all of this information, but we should not
force it on everyone.  The non-visual user who treats the Web as a
non-visual medium would probably prefer simply the alternative text.  We
need LONGDESC on OBJECT to allow for this level of granularity.

-- 
Liam Quinn
Received on Monday, 8 June 1998 13:01:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:57 GMT