W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: Unresolved Issues

From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 11:26:36 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990915112636.00a4f980@localhost>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Nir Dagan <nir@nirdagan.com>
Cc: ehansen@ets.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Some comments
>  >
>  >Issue 12 - Is "title" a disability access feature? Could title be used
as a 
>  >text equivalent? (My notes suggest that I saw it being used as such but I 
>  >don't recall what it may have been.)
>ND  
>  The general answer is that title is not for equivalents. It is for giving
>  suplementary information.  One exception would be <frame> where title may
>  serve as "a link 
>  description" to the function of the frame. This is shortcoming of HTML, or
>  more 
>  precisely of the way frames were imposed on HTML by Netscape.
>  
>  The title of <link> also serves as a link description but it suplements 
>  the rev and rel attributes (although these are optional).

MK: In SMIL title is strongly recommended for every element, so it would be
too bad it that could not be used to give brief characterization of the
element (I thought that is the function of title anyway?). Some elements in
SMIL don't have any other information available e.g. A and ANCHOR elements
(even the link text in A is outside the SMIL doc, there is only a URI to a
file containing the text).

I think we just have different levels of equivalency starting from title,
which is not always very clear, alt that tries to express function more
verbosely, and longdesc that tries to give the most complete equivalent
description.

>CMN
>I think Nir has answered these pretty well.
>  
>  Regards,
>  Nir.
>  
Received on Wednesday, 15 September 1999 11:29:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT