- From: <nir.dagan@econ.upf.es>
- Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:32:47 +0200
- 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 UTC