- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:25:37 +0100
- To: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
- CC: 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>, 'Jonas Sicking' <jonas@sicking.cc>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>, 'W3C WAI-XTECH' <wai-xtech@w3.org>, 'Barry McMullin' <barry.mcmullin@dcu.ie>, 'Laura Carlson' <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
On 24/08/2010 21:51, Sailesh Panchang wrote: >> This is somewhat circular reasoning. You're saying that it's obviously >> a mistake to link to inside a @hidden subtree because it's disallowed. >> No, I'm saying it's obviously a mistake to link to irrelevant content, and >> that content inside a block marked by a hidden="" attribute is by >> definition irrelevant. >> Then I'm saying it's not allowed, so as to help authors using validators >> to catch this mistake. > > This is getting a bit hilarious. > I thought there was some objection to longdesc content being available to > only AT users. But here I see other mechanisms being invented to allow > access for AT users to content that is generally hidden. Beats me. and me. > Maybe these proponents do not realize that an AT user may access longdesc > content only if he/she chooses to and does not have to access it every time > tone navigates to the chart / graph. Instead of proposing such retrograde > measures to banish longdesc, one may do well to urge browser makers to > improve support for longdesc- an attribute that has been around for over a > decade. E.g. at user's option make the longdesc content visible. Maha +1 Josh
Received on Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:25:56 UTC