W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: dlink and longdesc

From: Jim Thatcher <thatch@attglobal.net>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 14:33:59 -0500
To: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org, W3c-Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-id: <NDBBKJDAKKEJDCICIODLGECJDBAA.thatch@attglobal.net>

I feel strongly that the alt text should be simple and convey the
information of the image. So the alt text for the two images at the top of
the page should be exactly the words on those images, without the
description of the graphic; that should be in the long description.

Long description is supported. HPR not only offers it to its blind users,
but adds the link to the graphic view as well - a decision I consider to be
a bug. I haven't checked screen readers.  They will catch up when folks
start using longdesc.

I think the right thing to do is provide the longdesc attribute and do not
clutter your design with the D tag - at least for the template. The D tag is
fine for some of our sites, but it would certainly not help your design. The
description is not interesting anyway! It is somewhat amusing that when I
carefully included the d link, like in
http://jimthatcher.com/webcourse2.htm, HPR then has the D link right after a
"Long Description" link. 

As far as adding white on white D link, that will work for the screen
readers I know. It is done at http://firstgov.gov  (white on white) and
http://www.assistivetech.net (black on black)  for the skip navigation

Accessibility Consulting

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]
> Sent:	Sunday, May 06, 2001 9:55 AM
> To:	W3c-Wai-Ig
> Subject:	dlink and longdesc
> i have added longdesc to almost all the images.  i know i need to add some
> better ALT tag description.  however, as the longdesc is not used, the
> recomendation use is d-link.  do you agree?
> i do not think we are going to get government and commercial designers to
> add this or worse yet some designs are so intensive that the cost of
> rework may justify not doing it.  
> I would propose that a list of descriptions be kept on another page with a
> copy of the image.  
> would an alternative be if space could be made to make the link white so
> it would be hidden to users.  could it be rendered by assistive devices or
> do some devices not read text that is not visible?
> comments?

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 15:34:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:12 UTC