- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 08:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > > > > Btw, I have suggested (spec text which says) that when a longdesc > > points to another page, then it should point to the exact fragment > > where the description begins ... And that there should also be an > > onvous end of the description. I still think that is a good idea May > > be, Silvia, if you try to add spec text, should should try to keep > that > > perspective? > > I was indeed wondering about that. If longdesc should only be used for > a11y purposes, then indeed it should point to the fragment offset of > the long description on the longdesc page. However, I wonder if it is > sufficient to provide people the opportunity to read that information > on a separate page that contains other interesting information, too. > They are already prepared to spend more time on reading about the > image, so they will probably find the paragraph(s) that provide the > long description quickly. That would allow the longdesc link to be > both useful to blind and sighted users. With no disrespect to Leif, I am not convinced that this is something that should be *specified* - it might be useful author information in some instances, but it is overly prescriptive. There are indeed instances when a single page of text describing an image is both appropriate and logical, and adding an id fragment achieves nothing but added complexity. For example, Dirk Ginader's jQuery plugin (https://github.com/ginader/Accessible-Longdesc) would become significantly more complicated it if had to parse page fragments, or needed to omit extraneous data (replication of the image) - see the example: http://blog.ginader.de/dev/jquery/longdesc/examples/webaim/index.php As well, looking at plugin solutions such as the WordPress longdesc module, the author is prompted to provide both an alternative text, as well as a "description" at image insertion time, and upon submit the module stores that descriptions as a unique db entry and dynamic url: <sample> <img src="http://john.foliot.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/dreamweaver.gif" alt="[Screen Capture: Dreamweaver's image tag Accessibility Attributes dialog box]" title="Dreamweaver Dialog Box" longdesc="http://john.foliot.ca?longdesc=375&referrer=371" width="510" height="133" class="alignright size-full wp-image-375" /><a id="longdesc-return-375"></a> </sample> So while I am not saying this is right or wrong, I am saying that we need to be careful what we include as specification text, and what we include as author guidance, and including id fragments and/or replications of the image would be, at best, MAY suggestions. JF
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2011 15:52:27 UTC