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
	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.
	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.


	(allegedly on annual leave)



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:30 UTC