W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: OBJECT Element

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 10:54:12 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980603105412.00912e40@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Thanks Al,  I know somebody had though about this before.  I think in
general it is better for the browser group to use what HTML gives us,
rather than try to go and change HTML.  What do people think?
Jon


At 11:03 AM 6/3/1998 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
>to follow up on what Jon Gunderson said:
>
>> In our telecon it was discussed that the OBJECT element needs a LONGDESC
>> attribute, just like the IMG element.  The main reason is that the user may
>> want both the OBJECT and the LONGDESC information.  In the current
>> structure the user can only have one or the other using the OBJECT nesting
>> structure.   
>
>I am not sure that the browser can't give the user some method to
>access the alternate (i.e. the OBJECT content) even when the
>OBJECT data are displayed as the initial state of the page.  It
>seems to me that if the content between the start and stop tags
>of the OBJECT element is present, the browser has the ability to
>display it.  The question becomes under what circumstances.  Is
>it an interaction, just a static mode, an optional feature
>controlled by a static mode, or what?  In particular, if the
>logic of this function is to offer an action only when there is
>non-blank content in the OBJECT element, then in most cases where
>the option intrudes on the screen, it will be of sufficient
>interest so that the reader and author accept it.
>
>There is a philosophy, here.  We discussed at length with the
>HTML language team that we might have to take liberties or
>introduce new strictness in the browser handling of markup when
>the browser guidelines were written.  So we have a relatively
>free hand in saying what browsers should do with what is in the
>file.  But what goes in the file should be viewed as frozen,
>unless we come to a real show-stopper.  I don't yet see that this
>one reaches that level, because I think the browser can do
>something reasonable with the markup as presently defined.
>
>What is the current thinking about the user interface
>implementation of LONGDESC?  How and when is the user advised
>that this information is there for the asking?  The same kind of
>methods applied to the LONGDESC display could be used to offer
>access to the OBJECT content in the case when the OBJECT data are
>displayed.
>
>> Another reason is that the OBJECT nesting will be used to
>> provide alternative representations of the function and most time this will
>> probably be: "get a browser that can render this object".  This will also
>> provide a more consistant implementation of images since both IMG and
>> OBJECT will have LONGDESC atttributes.
>
>I am afraid that renaming the description opportunity isn't going
>to alter people's attitude that much.  If that is what they are
>going to put in the OBJECT content, instead of doing something like
>what I outlined in
>
>   Why OBJECT has no LONGDESC
>
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/1998AprJun/0231.html
>
>I don't think they would do any better in terms of populating a
>LONGDESC link.
>
>Al
>
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 1998 11:57:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:20 UTC