- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:53:09 +0100
- To: Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>
- Cc: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo wrote: > LONGDESC is a good description of a contradiction. I am not 100% sure what that means. > It's meant to > provide extra information about an image, Yes, by pointing at an URL that contains the LONGDESC text.[1] > no > visual UA supports it (AFAIK) Am unsure as to its level of support but you are probably right. As I mentioned its level of use that I have encountered has been minimal (due to lack of support maybe?) but I guess there are many situations where it could be useful. Technical manuals etc. The problem I have with this idea is the high load it puts on the user, in terms of having to click on a separate link to get a description of an image that may or may not be of use. Though if the user already has the ability to explore the image content via the alt attribute and wants more information in principle it was sound thinking at the time). The same thinking is behind "d-tagging" or the "d-link" (which came about due to lack of support for LONGDESC) which in many cases I feel is also pretty useless although if there are cases where others find it useful - then I defer to their knowledge and experience. > if you provide it > so people with visual problems can get that extra information about > the image then you are depriving the rest of the people with that very > same info. > > Is that logical? No, as you are not depriving sighted users or compromising their user experience at all. However some may say you are inflicting an unsightly little d at the corner of their images when 'd-tagging", which many graphic designers would give out about. Josh [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-techniques-19980918#img-longdesc
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 14:53:25 UTC