- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:06:49 +0200
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Barry McMullin <barry.mcmullin@dcu.ie>
Silvia Pfeiffer, Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:00:19 +1000: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Charles McCathieNevile ´>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:34:06 +0200, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > The only Websites that I have seen that use a link to a description > are Government Websites or Websites of Government-like organisations > that are not so worreid about their design, but very worried about > meeting WCAG requirements. I think it is being looked at as > non-elegant. For example, I am yet to find images on Apple's Websites > that have even a non-empty @alt attribute, not to speak of a detailed > description link. > > What I am mostly wondering about is whether in future we want to use > things like @longdesc or prefer to use @aria-described-by. Having > both doesn't seem to make sense to me. Several differences between @longdesc and @aria-describedby have already been described - in the poll (by Gez) as well as just now, by John. [1] In addition, some are contemplating adding something like a @aria-link attribute in the next version of ARIA. (This idea are sometimes presented as "making aria-describedby capable of containing links", however, Charles gives a more credible outlook when he described it as: [2] “having exactly the same attribute, with a new name, available on more elements, in some unspecified future when ARIA 2 is ready”. (Note that ARIA also has an alternative to @alt - @aria-label, which hasn't lead us to remove @alt.) [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/036901cb4330$2307b530$69171f90$@edu [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/op.vhcirn1zwxe0ny@widsith.local -- leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 2010 13:07:27 UTC