W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal)

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 16:05:32 -0500 (CDT)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404071552080.31615-100000@socrates.scdns.net>

> Some comments about longdesc and d-links:
> 1. We should not *require* redundant use of longdesc *and* d-link for
> <img> elements that need additional description.   If support for
> longdesc isn't widespread enough to be reliable,

Well, what do you mean by that?

The user agent that WCAG WG has historically custom-crafted its guidelines
to cater to, Jaws on IE for Windows, can read a longdesc. Window-Eyes
supports it. You can read longdescs in Mozilla. There are other
implementations, for all I know. (iCab, even, not that it really counts.)

It's in the spec. Some user agents support it, and the rest of them are 
gonna have to eventually.

The D-link option was always a kludge and simply is not justifiable. It is
extra-specification: To endorse it is to concede that the HTML spec isn't
good enough. It says the spec is so bad, in fact, that we have to
recommend nonstandard workarounds. Well, why?

> we should require that
> descriptions be provided either on-page or in a separate, linked
> file/window.

I think not.

> 2. On pages that display multiple images that require description,
> link-text pointing to the descriptions should identify the image to
> which the description refers.

How's that gonna work on photoblog pages with valid code and correct 
alt-text usage?


(using null alt text when adjacent text does the job)

Where are you gonna put 20 letter Ds?

(Hi, Chris!)

Let's stick to the spec.


    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:05:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:48 UTC