W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-hc@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Invisible D link Example

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:32:10 +0200
Message-Id: <199709251132.NAA08651@www47.inria.fr>
To: WAI HC Working Group <w3c-wai-hc@w3.org>


 http://www.prodworks.com/books/d-example.html

I like the trick of invisible D link using null.gif and border=0 (not
even the link marker is visible).
I also like the look of the visible D graphics.

But it brings up the following question: 
  - is the long description only useful if the image is not accessible
    or does it complete/add to the image value ?

I looked back at Gregg classification
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-wg/1997JulSep/0082.html)
but couldn't find a clear position on that.

If the description adds to the image value, and is to be used with the
image, there should be no reason for the author to hide its link, and
the visible D graphics is my preferred method. It's not an
accessibility issue anymore in fact, since the image is
accessible. It's the metadata kind, where the image is the data and
the longdesc is more data about the data (origin, context, etc)

If the description is to be used as a replacement of the image (it
completes ALT), then I still question the "invisibility" of the link
in the case where several images are laid out together to form some
kind of mosaic or other tight formatting wanted by the author: will
the presence of any kind of valid markup that is not an attribute
(like the proposed LONGDESC), like anchors (even null.gif border=0)
modify the page layout in any way ?

I'll try a test page soon.
Received on Thursday, 25 September 1997 07:32:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:35:00 UTC