W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: SVGAccessibilityWG: has-been-clicked or a:visited

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:26:37 -0000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <cmooau$tk6$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com> wrote in message 
> The comparable standard in SVG does not appear to have been agreed (or 
> discussed?)

It's a graphic, it's down to the user, if they want consistency, then I 
would encourage them to follow the standards from the HTML world if they're 
applicaple.  Otherwise it purely depends on their interface.  I'm not sure 
we can, or should try and impose a standard from outside, it depends on the 
context, the thing to remember about SVG is it's purely rendering, the 
conventions to use depends on what you've rendered.

> arranging a border for a group is a complex process, (by hand...) it 
> certainly would be helpful to have a group 'border' with style in SVG.
> (rectangular borders for graphics that aren't rectangular are indeed very 
> ugly, whether in html or svg.)

If you read the Vector Effects section of 1.2 you can see this has already 
been addressed, it's much simpler in the future.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/styling.html#StylingWithCSS where no 
> description is provided, the linked pseudo classes refer to CSS and not 
> the specifics of SVG.

There's no specific to SVG in this case.

> The fact is that this is an extremely open option, there are plenty of 
> possibilities, and it would be great to have some working examples or 
> prototypes.

I don't see the use case, I don't use links in SVG documents, I've almost 
entirely seen SVG use buttons as links, something that doesn't show the 
visited etc. in HTML - it's down to the different interaction models of SVG 
and HTML content - the content is different.

Your use case for SVG, is often very different from the one most of 
understand, your audience is one I've struggled to understand for many 
years.  I think everyone has struggled to understand, obviously most of the 
people posting to this list has difficulty comprehending the issues, and I 
have to thank you for raising them.  The thing to remember though is we have 
different use cases, and whilst some things help in addressing yours, others 
harm ours, which is why the spec should only give the ability, rather than 
dictating a course of action.

> It isn't clear why alt isn't included as well as title, they have 
> different functions perhaps one describing the image, and the other the 
> linked resource, surely essential accessibility for SVG?

There's no way of describing a linked resource in SVG, other than using the 
metadata element and elements not from the SVG namespace.  However alt is 
much better provided for with both description, and metadata giving the 
ability to describe the image in considerable detail, I don't think an awful 
lot is needed here.

Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 21:27:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC