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: <>
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?

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
>> 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
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
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