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

Re: Longdesc D-link

From: <nir.dagan@econ.upf.es>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:32:47 +0200
Message-Id: <H0000e2200b56dc4@MHS>
TO: charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au
CC: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I agree with Gregg's summary with an exception: In my view 
one should not write both longdesc and a D-link. People who 
will do that will have to change their pages when longdesc 
will be supported. (as they'll get two links instead of one for
each image)

Those who use only D-link *may* choose to upgrade to longdesc,
but may keep their older pages as is.

I would also like to comment on using OBJECT. 
Concerning UA support, it may be true that when support 
for longdesc will be around there may also be for OBJECT.

However as things stand now, OBJECT gives terrible results
in some browsers, longdesc is simply ignored.

I think it is good to educate authors to use longdesc 
for those images whose long description is not essential to understand 
and use the website. (like the Archimeded in the tub example, see 
archives of this list)

Most authors will not use D-link, as creating
visible links reduces usability for all those who 
never saw a D-link in their lives.

For those images that convey essential information, the author should
give textual description and a normal link to it. I really can't see
why it should be called D-link.

Example:

<P> ...our sales are described in the following chart:</P>

<DIV><IMG src="chart.gif" alt="Sales chart (65Kb)"><BR>
[<A href="chart.html">text version of sales chart</A>]</DIV>

Clearly when OBJECT is correctly supported the above example
is better marked-up with OBJECT.

Regards,
Nir Dagan
http://www.nirdagan.com
Received on Monday, 14 September 1998 05:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:58 GMT