- From: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:44:29 +0100
- To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
On 4 April 2011 18:36, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > it is not intended that longdesc will 'hide accessibility' in fact it is the > opposite as I have attempted to articulate in the example spec text [1]. > Of course browser vendors cannot be forced to expose longdesc in a device > independent way, just as they cannot be forced to expose title attribute > content in a device independent way, but authors can work around browser > support issues. > [1] http://www.html5accessibility.com/tests/img-longdesc.html The example spec text includes "...a visible indication of longdesc presence should be provided." On 4 April 2011 19:50, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CREATION OF @LONGDESC IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS > THAT AUTHORS WANTED A MEANS TO ENSURE LONGER DESCRIPTIONS COULD BE > PROVIDED *WITHOUT* HAVING A VISUAL INCUMBERANCE ON THEIR PAGE - LONGDESC > WAS DEVELOPED TO ADDRESS DESIGNER NEEDS, BASED ON DESIGNER FEEDBACK! The current CP also suggests being "natively free from a visual encumbrance" is an essential requirement, and 6 of the 9 use cases explicitly require the longdesc link to be invisible. If being hidden is not an essential feature, updating the CP accordingly would be helpful. http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc#Rationale ~Matt
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2011 18:44:57 UTC