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

RE: D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal)

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:41:59 -0500 (CDT)
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0404072139390.24407-100000@socrates.scdns.net>

> The problem is that (as far as I'm aware) longdesc is available
> *only* to people who use screen readers or talking browsers that support
> it.

Mozilla and iCab aren't screen readers.

>  So I would argue that longdesc should
> be the method of choice only when authors are certain that people who
> are blind are the only ones who will need the description.

I wouldn't.

> As for your second point, where to place a text link that's long enough
> to indicate which image-description it refers to is a design question,
> not a guidelines question. 

It's a reality check, John!

> The requirement to clearly identify the
> target of each link has been in WCAG for five years, and it's a good
> requirement.  Multiple links that say More ... And point to different
> places don't meet that checkpoint,

Ever heard of the title attribute?

> nor do multiple links that say "d"
> and point to descriptions fo different images.  At the very least the
> identifying information should be in the title attribute. 

Apparently you have!

> (And, as to
> the design question, what designer likes to have a page littered with
> little orphan letter d's?)

My point exactly.

We have longdesc for a reason. Use it.

> -----Original Message-----


    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 22:42:06 UTC

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