W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Short and long descriptions for links

From: John Colby <John.Colby@uce.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:31:32 -0000
Message-ID: <107DE25EC0216C45AEF670016024245F022A712F@exchangea.staff.uce.ac.uk>
To: "Patrick Lauke" <P.H.Lauke@salford.ac.uk>, "Matthew J. Giustino" <mjg@giustiweb.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org on behalf of Patrick Lauke 
	


	From: Matthew J. Giustino
	> Just for clarification, you are saying that "longdesc"
	> may be more appropriate to use than the "title" attribute?
	
	Aeh...*no*, I didn't mention longdesc anywhere in my reply, did I?
	
	I just adopted the terminology the thread starter used in the subject
	line...
	
	This makes most of your points moot, as I know that longdesc can't
	be used on A elements, isn't exposed to keyboard users, etc
	
	We're in agreement here that longdesc can't be used.
	
	Patrick
	________________________________
	
	
	I'm trying to rationalise which type of images (with the exception of graphs and visual data presentation) that need a longdesc without sighted readers also needing that description available. Graphs and data images (my term), being the visual interpretation of some data - do they need to be described or does the data need to be stated? I can think of instances where either one or both would be suitable.

	John

	(allegedly on annual leave)

	 

	 

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2004 11:32:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:18 GMT