[Bug 10967] Add @desclink, a description link attr. for any embedded element + figure

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10967

--- Comment #3 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> 2010-10-03 06:17:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)

When I said "misunderstanding" and "misuse", then I include well intended as
well as willful misuse. There is no doubt that there exists misunderstanding
and misuse of @longdesc. The question is whether the name has contributed and
if a new, better, name would help. Tantek Çelik's comment in the Poll seems to
imply htat he think that a better name could have helped: ]] It is VERY poorly
named - seems to imply a "long description" as even this survey misstates it
whereas it is actually a URL [[. 

Mark Pilgrim's 'The longdesc lottery' classifies 96% of @longdesc instances as
"obvious errors". He covered both invalid URLs as well as valid but meaningless
URLs in that class. That is: he placed "description inline" amongst the 96%
"obvious errors" class.

Of the remaining 4%, he found 75% to be unobvious errors: "links to other
images, links gone 404, links to one-line text descriptions identical to the
alt attribute, and links to pages that describe the image size but not its
contents (Wikipedia, I'm looking at you)".

When it comes to "links to other images", then that is a category that might
even have increased the last years. Just consider www.addfullsize.com.  The
addfullsize developer even argued with me on Twitter that @longdesc was the
closest attribute he could find, and refused to change it.
But AddFullsize.com is not alone in its misuse of @longdesc.  Just consider
google codesearch, which uncovers lots of meaningless top level domain URLs as
well:
http://www.google.com/codesearch?&q=longdesc%3D.*%5C.%5B%5Epjg%5D%5B%5Epni%5D%5B%5Efg%5D

As for invalid URLs due to content being a text string, then the popular open
source app, Gallery, had that error, until it was fixed some time in the summer
of 2007 (but the error could still be deployed).

Both you and Mark Pilgrim seem to operate from the assumption that everyone
that have used @longdesc have understood its purpose but failed to use it
correctly. Quoting Mark: ]] No more than one in a hundred get it right, of one
in a thousand that even try. [[

However, evidence shows that authors make their own interpretation - well
intended or bad intended.  I agree with Tantek that the name could be be a
factor. And new name should be so good and clear that it would remove any
opportunity for doubt and well intended reintepretation,  as well as being so
clear that willful rereading of the attribute semantics would be difficult for
authors who want to be "in good standing".

But the name is of course not everything. The fact that @longdesc is linked to
the @img element, instead of being a general attribute for embedded content,
has probably contributed to misuse as well, simply because the need to show an
alternative, often bigger size, verison of the IMG is so common. Also, I think
that it is unfortunate that @longdesc has been linked to the issue of correct
use of @alt - as we know, authors sometimes consider @alt as a purely a
validation burdon. Authors might have added @longdesc just to be on the safe
side, just as some authors - for sure - have added empty as well as non-empty
@alt-s, just to validate. A global @desclink for all embedding elements plus
<figure>, would benefit from being decoupled from <img>.

When it comes to the name @desclink then that name is already somewhat similar
to D-link, which is considered the alternative to @longdesc. But I also think a
new name could serve to mark that @desclink is intended to have a bit wider use
than @longdesc has - we should not focus on it too much on it as as an
accessibility feature in the narrow sense, but rather see it somewhat like
@alt: it is a feature that might be particular useful to some, but which is
actually useful to us all.

This said: You are well come to support  bug 10938 instead, where I suggest to
use a new, dedicated wrapper element for for the purpose of description links,
if you believe that that would lead to more correct use.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 06:17:36 UTC