- From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:18:37 +0100
- To: Bill Mason <w3c@accessibleinter.net>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Bill Mason wrote: > ...this is completely irrelevant LONGDESC, unless the site's audience is > readers interested in the history and evolution of flags. I think its fair to say that this audience would have had a fondness for history. > Given that LONGDESC is for: > > * "...a long description of the image. This description should > supplement the short description provided using the alt attribute." [1] > * "...complex content (e.g., a chart) where the "alt" text does not > provide a complete text equivalent...." [2] > * "[providing] information in a file designated by the longdesc > attribute when a short text alternative does not adequately convey the > function or information provided in the image." [3] > > The history of the flag has nothing to do with its function/purpose on > the page as an HTML element, does not fulfill a need not being handled > by the short description, and arguably the image shouldn't even be on > the page as an HTML element. The point is that the LONGDESC should provide a mechanism for far more detailed information than @alt. @alt is supposed to be short some say up to 50 characters some 100 [1] [2], there is no ceiling AFAIK but the consensus is certainly that it should be short, so LONGDESC is to provide the user with a longer more detailed description. You may disagree with how the example was constructed to illustrate this point but surely the reasoning is fairly sound? Josh http://www.joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html http://www.webaim.org/discussion/mail_thread.php?thread=2496
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 10:18:55 UTC