- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:24:48 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:16:59 +1000: > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Laura Carlson >> I teach how to write alternate text and longdesc in one-on-one >> settings as part of my daily job duties and formally in workshops >> multiple times a year. Debi Orton attested in the last HTML WG survey >> on ISSUE-30 that she always teaches longdesc and how to use it >> effectively. >> >> We have longdesc support base existing in the form of authoring tools, >> documentation, tutorials, books, etc. all of which is all a part of >> our evidence so I will not repeat it again here. > > This is all great and really necessary. But can we quantify the > effect? It would, for example, be a good argument if we were able to > say that 4 years ago we made this analysis and only 0.1% of images hat > a @longdesc and 99% of those were wrong, while now 1% of images have > one and 70% of them are correctly implemented. Just making up numbers > here - but something like this would be really helpful. In such a quantification it would/could be useful to document erroneous image galleries etc that misuse @longdesc? May be one could document that mis-usage has gone down? My theory is that @data-* is going to to - has taken over for - much of the misuse. -- leif h silli
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 11:25:22 UTC