Re: example spec text for longdesc

Hi Sam and Jonas,

Jonas wrote:
>> So far I have seen no reason to believe that longdesc is going to be
>> used in a much better way the next 10 years than it has the past 10
>> years. If that's the case then we really aren't helping anyone. I'd
>> like to actually make the web better.

Sam wrote:
> In the original decision[1], the incorrect usages argument was found
> to be weak.  Specifically "no evidence was provided that it would be
> difficult or impossible for user agents to identify and make good use
> of correct usage."  Any evidence that people have either way on this
> point would be helpful.

Karl Groves has done recent research on this:
http://www.karlgroves.com/2011/03/27/longdesc-misuse-how-prevalent/

Best Regards,
Laura

On 3/26/11, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 03/25/2011 10:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> So far I have seen no reason to believe that longdesc is going to be
>> used in a much better way the next 10 years than it has the past 10
>> years. If that's the case then we really aren't helping anyone. I'd
>> like to actually make the web better.
>
> In the original decision[1], the incorrect usages argument was found to
> be weak.  Specifically "no evidence was provided that it would be
> difficult or impossible for user agents to identify and make good use of
> correct usage."  Any evidence that people have either way on this point
> would be helpful.
>
> More directly to Jonas's point above, I note that if one visits a site
> that correctly uses longdesc and right-mouse-clicks on such an image
> using a recent version of Opera one sees an option to obtain the Long
> Description of the image (see attached image).  Does this change things?
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson