- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 13:21:25 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli, Tue, 10 May 2011 13:10:22 +0200:
> Laura Carlson, Mon, 9 May 2011 19:03:39 -0500:
>
>> Do you think we should keep the images in the rendering spec text or
>> delete them?
>
> Plusses: each img has a @longdesc = exemplifies.
- and tells a user/usage story.
Leif
> Minuses: the img-s are quite big - could have been made smaller. (Some
> or all of them display more browser chrome than strictly needed.)
>
> Ideas:
>
> Could the images be edited so that at least each image pair is
> presented side by side? Then readers see their relationship faster.
>
> If you agree to that, then I'd suggest to also add two images for the
> context-menu example too, where the second image could show a
> "description window" in front of the main content window.
>
> The last example, with 3 images, I would also suggest to have side by
> side.
>
> To present them side by side, you could may be use an ordered list
> where the list items are inline blocks. Or may be you could use a
> table. Or - may be the simplest (except that you may then need to
> arrange the image caption differently) - you can simply place the
> related IMG elements side by side - it seems the spec treats such
> images as inline images, so they would be rendered side by side. (I
> have looked through all the 23 images in the spec - see for instance
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/interactive-elements#dom-details-open -
> which has two images side by side.)
> --
> Leif H Silli
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 11:21:53 UTC