- From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 11:15:20 +0000
- To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
- CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
I agree. One clarification: my statement below singling out JAWS' implementation of longdesc is not meant to imply that it is the ideal implementation, nor should it be taken as *the* reason for keeping longdesc in the spec. It's just one example of implementation. The fact that other screen-reader vendors have chosen not to support longdesc, or any other element or attribute of the spec, is not the responsibility of the working group. Geoff/NCAM On 4/2/12 3:45 AM, "Joshue O Connor" <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: >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 11:16:03 UTC