W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Comments on the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 doc (21 August 2002 draft)

From: Brian Kelly <b.kelly@ukoln.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:35:32 -0000
To: "'Jon Gunderson'" <jongund@uiuc.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <005c01c25816$88ab07b0$d513268a@ukoln.ac.uk>

> Responses are indicated by JRG:
> At 03:05 PM 9/8/2002 +0000, Brian Kelly wrote:
> >
> >The LONGDESC attribute is poorly supported in user agents 
> and so there 
> >is very limited deployment experience.  Should the 
> guidelines mandate 
> >support for it and give guidence on how it should be used?
> JRG: UAAG requires access to all "conditional content".  
> LONGDESC is one 
> example of conditional content and access is required at the P1 
> level.  (see checkpoint 2.3)
> ...
> >Guideline 9 - Provide navigation mechanisms
> >
> >Does this mean that a compliant user agent should (must) 
> support <LINK> 
> >e.g. the nexp, previous, up, etc attributes.  I think this would be 
> >great.  This element has been aound for a long time, but user agent 
> >supporty is very limited.  If this is the intention, shouldn't the 
> >document mention it explicitly?
> JRG: We could certainly add this to the techniques document.  
> But it is 
> currently on an explicit requirement of the document.  
> Navigation is an 
> important, but complex issue.  One of the limitation of the HTML 4.01 
> specification is that in many cases it does not state what 
> behaviors should 
> be associated with an element.  In the case of LINK, it 
> implies behavior 
> but does not state what the browser should do to comply.  

I think there's a link (sorry, relationships) between the comments about
LONGDESC and LINK.  Use of LONGDESC doesn not appear to be described and
the poor support for it is leading to inconsistencies and ambiguities
(the format of a LONGDESC file, should it contain navigational links or
can be left to the browser).  There was a brief discssion on this on
wai-ig a month or so ago. 

I assume you are making a similar point about LINK.  In this case a
small number of specialist browsers have provided support.  I used
EDIwww out 6 years ago.  A Google search finds:


Which usefully provides some screen shots.

I guess there it is questionable as to whether this would ever take off.
I assume developments within W3C would now recommend Xlink, RDf, etc.


> This would help 
> UAAG alot since it could point to a spec and say do this.
> Thanks for your comments,
> Jon
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 10:37:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:32 UTC