W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Aaron Gustafson <aaron@easy-designs.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:16:30 -0400
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D83B53BBAF714BACB4D853DD53109A15@easy-designs.net>
On Friday, September 7, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Adrian Roselli wrote:
> > From: Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no
>  
> > And this where I feel your "needless complexity" claim is undue: If we design
> > <picture>, we do of course try to make it work *now* - *everywhere*. And
> > that leads to complexity. It is unfair to use that against it unless you also
> > include how complex it is to make @longdesc work *everywhere* now, as
> > well. If you think it is *OK* to not make @longdesc work in NVDA and
> > VoiceOver, then perhaps it is OK that the alternative to @longdesc does not
> > work perfectly as well?
> >  
>  
>  
> I am of the opinion that @longdesc exists and has support, even if the support isn't ideal, and so is the natural long text alternative content holder. There is already more support for @longdesc today than there would be for a <desc> element (or the absence of an element), particularly because the content of a <desc> element (or not-element) will be forced on users on older browsers who don't want or need it. Expecting authors to style that away without impacting accessibility seems like a far reach here.  

+1

Cheers,

Aaron

--  
Aaron Gustafson
@AaronGustafson
aaron-gustafson.com
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 16:17:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 September 2012 16:17:03 GMT