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

RE: dlink and longdesc

From: Robert Neff <rneff@bbnow.net>
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 15:20:29 -0500
To: <jim@jimthatcher.com>, "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AHENJNNCANEHAIIBJNDGCEJECHAA.rneff@bbnow.net>
should the source file for longdesc be a text or html.  or does it matter?

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Jim Thatcher [mailto:thatch@attglobal.net] 
> Sent:	Sunday, May 06, 2001 3:09 PM
> To:	Robert Neff; W3c-Wai-Ig
> Cc:	jim@jimthatcher.com
> Subject:	RE: dlink and longdesc
> 
> Robert,
> 
> I am conservative on alt text. I would use alt="", but your argument that
> the image does convey information - "separating main content from footer"
> - is somewhat convincing. If convinced of that, I would use alt="begin
> footer" or alt="begin footer content." 
> 
> Jim 
> jim@jimthatcher.com
> Accessibility Consulting
> http://jimthatcher.com
> 512-306-0931 
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Robert Neff [mailto:rneff@bbnow.net] 
> Sent:	Sunday, May 06, 2001 3:01 PM
> To:	W3c-Wai-Ig
> Cc:	jim@jimthatcher.com
> Subject:	RE: dlink and longdesc
> 
> jim, thank you very much for your comment!  luckily i have this in an
> include file and can fix right away.
> 
> here is another question. the image in the footer is really there for
> functionality.  how would you describe the image in the footer?  What do
> you think of  "Separates main content and the footer."  then catch the
> image desciption in the longdesc and d-link?
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]
> 
> Sent:	Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:34 PM
> To:	w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org; W3c-Wai-Ig
> Subject:	RE: dlink and longdesc
> 
> Robert,
> 
> 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
> links. 
> 
> Jim 
> jim@jimthatcher.com
> Accessibility Consulting
> http://jimthatcher.com
> 512-306-0931 
> 
> 	 -----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 16:16:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:54 GMT