> 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? <http://leavesrustle.com/photos/?album=UpNorth2003> <http://photomatt.net/photos/log/3-12-2004> (using null alt text when adjacent text does the job) Where are you gonna put 20 letter Ds? <http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#d-links> (Hi, Chris!) Let's stick to the spec. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> Expect criticism if you top-postReceived on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 17:05:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT