- From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:14:19 +0200
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
- cc: "'w3c-wai-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-wg@w3.org>, "'Uaccess-L'"@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, <uaccess-l@trace.wisc.edu>, "Webwatch-L (E-mail)"@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu, <webwatch-l@teleport.com>
> I have concern over strategy #2 being the prefered strategy. Strategy #2 > is the most elegant from a programming standpoint. My main concern with #2 > is visibility of the text description, which I beleive is important for > people to know it's there. Especially for non-disabled peers not familiar > with disability access options helping a person with a disability to learn > to use a browser. Strategy #1 is the most visible to people. Strategy #2 > is going to be highly dependent on browser implementation and I don't know > how consistent browser developers will be in rendering the ALTSRC > information or easy it will be to configure it to render ALTSRC > information, since it will be a little used function by the general public > (just try turning off images in Netscape 4.01, if you know how let > me know). I have the opposite reaction: I prefer #2 (ALTSRC attrib) over #1 (D-LINK markup) because is it less invasive for non-disabled persons. The most important thing IMHO is get the LongDesc link into the HTML source. Anything that might slow down acceptation of this feature by Web authors should be avoided and having little D appearing all over the pages is not going to help us. How is it exploited by the client side is less important once the data is there and the lack of UI consistency can be reduced using Browser guidelines. In any case I think this is where competition might be useful and healthy.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 11:17:52 UTC