- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:45:01 +0100
- To: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
- CC: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Matthew Turvey wrote: > On 1 April 2012 14:53, Geoff Freed<geoff_freed@wgbh.org> wrote: >>> - Support for longdesc in browsers and AT is poor and has been so for >>> many years. >> GF: >> True, but there *is* support, and it isn't new-- it has been available for >> years. Ask anyone who uses JAWS (anecdotally speaking, the most popular >> screen reader in use today) in combination with IE or Firefox (anecdotally >> speaking, the two most popular browsers in use today). Better yet, try it >> yourself. It works, and it works every time. > > I don't think that's entirely accurate. There's at least some evidence > that even JAWS users sometimes have difficulty accessing longdesc > links. See: > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit#Problems_with_Longdesc You should not infer a correlation between difficulty accessing content with a lack of usefulness. This is a dangerous path. Any difficulty is more to do with implementation of the idea rather than its inception. It makes sense to me to retain @longdesc and improve it. I don't agree with the year zero approach. I don't agree with making an element 'sort of' accessible to everyone while drastically reducing its usefulness for the original target audience (blind of vision impaired users in this case). My 2 cents. Josh
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 07:45:38 UTC