- From: Doyle Burnett <dburnett@sesa.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:45:27 -0800
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
With regard to this discussion, I would agree that if the photo collage on the page [1] were described in some form other than "just" using the alt tag, it would be more clear as to what it is one is viewing. It's a collage of many different photographs and I do not believe the alt tags alone really give a screen reader user the real picture. In the case of [2], the captions on these photographs COULD work but the ones that exist do not really describe the photographs. For example, somebody lays it on - what's that mean? The one thing I will say is that when we give explicit examples as techniques or whatever and the rules change down the road, authors are going to be less likely to listen. doyle [1] http://leavesrustle.com/photos/?album=UpNorth2003 [2] http://photomatt.net/photos/log/3-12-2004 On 4/7/04 1:54 PM, "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote: > > Sorry, Joe, just went to the first of the sites you listed and I don't > get it. What would prevent the person who owns that page from providing > a meaningful text link to text that describes the images? If the page > is generated by some kind of album application, the application could > prompt for the description and build a link to it; if there's a template > into which the content flows, the template could be designed to > accommodate the text link. Would most people use such features if they > existed? Probably not. But most people who put up sites like this > aren't trying to make conformance claims anyway. Still, it would be > nice if the applications they use gave them the option to do it in a > meaningful way. > > (And, btw, the pulldown menu at the bottom of the page appears to have > an onchange handler...) > > On the second site you listed, again there's nothing to prevent > providing a meaningful text link to a description. The images have alt > attributes, but they're not really valid: each <img> is a link, and you > can't put null alt on a graphical link. So they *could* make the image > a link to the enlarged view of itself, and make the text caption link to > a text description. If they wanted to. > > > "Good design is accessible design." > Please note our new name and URL! > John Slatin, Ph.D. > Director, Accessibility Institute > University of Texas at Austin > FAC 248C > 1 University Station G9600 > Austin, TX 78712 > ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 > email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu > web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Joe Clark > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 4:06 pm > To: WAI-GL > Subject: D-links (was Conformance Testing Proposal) > > > >> Some comments about longdesc and d-links: >> 1. We should not *require* redundant use of longdesc *and* d-link for >> <img> elements that need additional description. If support for >> longdesc isn't widespread enough to be reliable, > > Well, what do you mean by that? > > The user agent that WCAG WG has historically custom-crafted its > guidelines to cater to, Jaws on IE for Windows, can read a longdesc. > Window-Eyes supports it. You can read longdescs in Mozilla. There are > other implementations, for all I know. (iCab, even, not that it really > counts.) > > It's in the spec. Some user agents support it, and the rest of them are > gonna have to eventually. > > The D-link option was always a kludge and simply is not justifiable. It > is > extra-specification: To endorse it is to concede that the HTML spec > isn't good enough. It says the spec is so bad, in fact, that we have to > recommend nonstandard workarounds. Well, why? > >> we should require that >> descriptions be provided either on-page or in a separate, linked >> file/window. > > I think not. > >> 2. On pages that display multiple images that require description, >> link-text pointing to the descriptions should identify the image to >> which the description refers. > > How's that gonna work on photoblog pages with valid code and correct > alt-text usage? > > <http://leavesrustle.com/photos/?album=UpNorth2003> > > <http://photomatt.net/photos/log/3-12-2004> > (using null alt text when adjacent text does the job) > > Where are you gonna put 20 letter Ds? > > <http://joeclark.org/book/sashay/serialization/Chapter06.html#d-links> > (Hi, Chris!) > > Let's stick to the spec.
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 19:45:37 UTC