- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:03:14 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
> <blockquote> >...and a descriptive link... > </blockquote> I thought the D link was deprecated and we were not going to suggest using it?? > <blockquote> >The amount of information in the image will determine how >detailed the description should be. > </blockquote> I thought the LONGDESC description should describe the image in relation to the document. It is not necessarily related to the image on its own. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org> To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 1:12 PM Subject: replaced the phrase "complex images" (technique 1.1.2) > On the 14 February telecon we discussed how to decide when an image needs a > longdesc. previously we said when an image was "complex." in the call I > read some excerpts from the National Braille Association's Tape Recording > Manual. We decided to incorporate those ideas to replace the phrase > "complex image." > > This is my proposal: > <blockquote> > IMG element should have a valid LONGDESC attribute and a descriptive link > if describing the image will add information not given in the text of the > page. The amount of information in the image will determine how detailed > the description should be. > </blockquote> > > --wendy > -- > wendy a chisholm > world wide web consortium > web accessibility initiative > madison, wi usa > tel: +1 608 663 6346 > /--
Received on Wednesday, 23 February 2000 15:03:51 UTC