- From: Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:14:53 -0400
- To: "'James Craig'" <jcraig@apple.com>, "'John Foliot'" <foliot@wats.ca>
- Cc: "'Lachlan Hunt'" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: public-html-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of James Craig > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 4:56 PM > To: John Foliot > Cc: 'Lachlan Hunt'; public-html@w3.org; 'W3C WAI-XTECH' > Subject: Re: Is longdesc a good solution? (was: Acessibility of <audio> > and <video>) > > > John Foliot wrote: > > > First off, many users of AT today do not query for longdesc as it is > > rarely > > if ever provided - a chicken and egg problem accelerated by the fact > > that > > most (all?) browsers today still do not natively support this > > element, and > > support within the major AT tools in the marketplace has only > recently > > emerged. > > I'd disagree with you on the usefulness of longdesc as a standard > description mechanism. There is a better, in-document alternative now: > ARIA's describedby property, which is also implemented in more > browsers than longdesc. I'm not an ARIA expert (which is why I didn't consider it for this), but I *am* an ARIA convert. If ARIA supports identical information as longdesc does, I am in favor of it over using an attribute, simply because I think that "people who really care" will be using ARIA, and overall I find the system practical. J.Ja
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 21:16:08 UTC