- From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:47:39 +1000
- To: "Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo" <amla70@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>, joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie, "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
WebAIM have excellent resources on this topic: Creating Accessible Images - Creating Effective Alternative (alt)Text: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/alt_text.php Creating Accessible Images - Long Descriptions: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/longdesc.php Also worth looking at the new <figure> element in HTML5: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?rev=1.78#the-figure Am I on the right track here? <figure> <legend>Graph of percentage of total U.S. noninsitutionalized population age 16-64 declaring one or more disabilities</legend> <img src="http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/media/graph.jpg" longdesc="media/description.htm" /> <figure> I'd really like to be able to do this: <figure> <legend>Graph of percentage of total U.S. noninsitutionalized population age 16-64 declaring one or more disabilities</legend> <img src="http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/media/graph.jpg"> <table> <caption>Graph of percentage of total U.S. noninsitutionalized population age 16-64 declaring one or more disabilities</caption> ... (fallback) data table reflecting graph in here, not shown when <img> is rendered ... </table> </img> <figure> Am I still on track? The idea comes from <object> [1] and @src in XHTML2 [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.3.1 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-embedding.html#adef_embedding_src XHTML2 would not require the <img> tag above, you could use <table src="http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/media/graph.jpg"> and only see the table. I don't know how effective these fallback mechanisms are with AT... don't a lot of AT products rely somewhat on what the browser renders (e.g. does a browser rendering an image might make it harder for screen reader to access the table fallback?) You may be wondering why I repeated <legend> with <caption>. I am too, but it seems to be required as: "The entire figure element (including the caption, if any) must be treated as being replaced by that fallback content." Can I also say it is very confusing using the term "caption" to refer to <legend> in this context? http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/spec/Overview.html?rev=1.78#the-figure On 6/20/07, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks for the answer > > Somehow I didn't really catch that the LONGDESC could be a part of the > very same page where the image is placed, so it creates a full link > between the image and its description. > > I usually thought about it as a new page and didn't like the fact that > only people with a special browser would be able to access it, that's > what I meant when I said that it is a contradiction, because a > resource meant to provide greater accessibility to people that can't > access the original data isn't available to other people that would > also benefit from that same text version of the resource (there are > some tables shown in the examples of headers that in order to > understand what they meant I had to look at the source code) > > So the shame is on the browser vendors for not providing a way to show > that an image has a longdesc attribute. > > Am I on the right track now? > > 2007/6/19, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:22:23 +0200, > > "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Alfonso_Mart=EDnez_de_Lizarrondo?= "Martínez de > > Lizarrondo" <amla70@gmail.com>" <"<amla70"@gmail.com>alfonso> wrote: > > > > > LONGDESC is a good description of a contradiction. It's meant to > > > provide extra information about an image, but the fact is that no > > > visual UA supports it (AFAIK), and that means that 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? > > > > > > So the solution is to wrap the image in a link so it points to the > > > extra info and everybody can access it. And in the end the existence > > > of such attribute isn't useful at all. > > > > > > Am I wrong about this issue? > > > > In a word, yes. > > > > Longdesc is not that common on the web. The native support is woeful - > > iCab excepted, although it is inaccessible in general - but there are > > extensions that people use to make it work nicely[1]. Despite the lack of > > support, it is used occasionally, and it is very useful. > > > > It is true that in general a real description would be useful to everyone, > > but there are a lot of designers who don't see things that way. The > > d-link, even when invisible, was not a popular idea because it could > > interfere with (over-)complicated layouts. In addition, it is a lot of > > work, so not everyone is going to provide this. > > > > In an ideal world, the longdesc for Maciej's flickr photos (and others) > > would point to the paragraph below, which describes, more or less, the > > image (and is of course addressable via a URI). Being able to point > > directly to a description would allow Gregory's photos, described by > > various other people, to be annotated with a pointer to the description he > > preferred [1]. An ideal browser implementation would know whether a > > description is in the same page immediately after, or in a different page, > > and make the UI make sense for both those cases. But being able to go back > > and forth is a minimally useful answer - just as label is in some way > > related to a form control, but different use agents do a better or worse > > job of making use of that association. > > > > As a further use case, wouldn't it be nice, instead of getting random > > results for image searches, if you could at least know that people > > building searches had the possibility of looking at longdesc content? (It > > may not work for Google, who would of course get spammed with keyword > > stuffing, but it would work for the various groups who do intranet search > > engines and it would be useful). This is what having semantics is about, > > after all. > > > > Cheers > > > > Chaals > > > > -- > > Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group > > hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk > > chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 11:47:43 UTC