- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:27:55 -0500
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi all, On 6/16/11, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 17:54:07 +0200, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> WebAIM recommends using a duplicate link if using >> longdesc. Longdesc is not available to all users, so you cannot rely >> on it to deliver a "a reliable and effective user experience." > > I understand the recommendation for a duplicate link. Yes. In other words, redundant link text attempts to mitigate damages of user agents that do not yet have a long description feature built directly into them. Because longdesc it is not yet supported by some web browsers, some sites provide a fallback method of providing a full description via redundant link text. With proper implementation in user agents these could all be solely longdesc. In addition, these types of link text approaches don't semantically or programmatically tie the description to image, whereas a longdesc does. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 18:28:52 UTC