- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 21:41:59 -0500 (CDT)
- To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> The problem is that (as far as I'm aware) longdesc is available
> *only* to people who use screen readers or talking browsers that support
> it.
Mozilla and iCab aren't screen readers.
> So I would argue that longdesc should
> be the method of choice only when authors are certain that people who
> are blind are the only ones who will need the description.
I wouldn't.
> As for your second point, where to place a text link that's long enough
> to indicate which image-description it refers to is a design question,
> not a guidelines question.
It's a reality check, John!
> The requirement to clearly identify the
> target of each link has been in WCAG for five years, and it's a good
> requirement. Multiple links that say More ... And point to different
> places don't meet that checkpoint,
Ever heard of the title attribute?
> nor do multiple links that say "d"
> and point to descriptions fo different images. At the very least the
> identifying information should be in the title attribute.
Apparently you have!
> (And, as to
> the design question, what designer likes to have a page littered with
> little orphan letter d's?)
My point exactly.
We have longdesc for a reason. Use it.
> -----Original Message-----
[Choke]
--
Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Wednesday, 7 April 2004 22:42:06 UTC