W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2008

Re: ISSUE-30 longdesc Re: Clarification of rational for deprecation...

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:25:02 +0530
To: "James Graham" <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t53yd0rhwxe0ny@pc130.chandigarh.osa>

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:09:23 +0530, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> Longdesc is not a perfect solution. But in terms of design it seems a  
>> lot better thought out than alt - it may be badly used at least as  
>> often, but were well used it is able to improve more in more cases...
> I'm prepared to bet that, given a choice, the majority of blind users  
> would take a browser that supported only alt over one that only  
> supported longdesc.

Oh, absolutely.

> This seems to be a classic example of "worse is better"; whilst the  
> design of alt is considerably less powerful than longdesc, that  
> simplicity has made it easier to get people to understand how to use it  
> correctly, and to actually deploy it on their sites.

Well, alt is also a more important functionality, one that is much less  
work to get half right. I agree that simplicity of design is helpful. It  
is also true that alt has suffered from monstrous amounts of misuse and  
poor use - even from people who are trying hard to get it right - and it  
is in that sense that I think longdesc was better designed. Of course,  
that's substantially just opinion... aesthetics of design are only  
moderately convertible and measurable in any sufficiently broad audience.



Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 14:55:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:30 UTC