Re: Expanding longdesc use

David Singer, Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:30:40 -0700:
> On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:05 , David MacDonald wrote:
>> There has been some discussion about describedby as a replacement 
>> for longdesc. However, screen reader user would have to encounter 
>> the description twice (once on the image and once on the page), 
>> which by definition is "long". The long text on the page clutters 
>> the page for most sighted users. (a deterrent for implementation by 
>> webmasters)
> 
> I think you are bumping up against a tension here that we have never 
> really resolved.  It lies between
> 
> "you haven't really provided for accessibility unless there are 
> features that are explicitly and exclusively there for accessibility" 
> 
> "provisions which are invisible to the non-accessibility user and 
> author tend to be poorly authored; accessibility as a natural 
> consequence of good design for everyone is a better goal"
> 
> I think a goal of having descriptions, transcripts, alternative text, 
> alternative media, available and potentially useful to everyone would 
> be good, myself -- I lean towards the second.

If you meant that one could rather have used a visual text link, then 
you are right - that is almost always possible - technically speaking. 
But that was not what David M was discussing: He discussed what to do 
when it has been concluded - by the designer or whoever - that there 
should be no visual link. 
-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 22:10:27 UTC