- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:21:51 -0500
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Sailesh Panchang" <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A033182B6@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
I want to clarify something I said earlier today on this thread. I wrote: <blockquote> It's entirely possible that longdesc isn't the best technique to use, and in fact an explicit text link might not always be the best thing either-- I would be interested in finding/learning about techniques that would establish an explicit association between an image and its description that don't necessarily employ a linking technique, rather something that a user agent could identify and report (at the user's discretion, for example). My thought was prompted by the note about RDF techniques, which I infer could provide a way to designate a block of text as a description for a given image, so that the two items could "travel" together. </blockquote> This is badly stated, and I apologize. I am *not* saying and do not mean that use of longdesc should be discouraged!! There are lots of situations where longdesc is the right solution-- for example, when (as Sailesh put it) including the description on the same page as the image would create visual and auditory clutter. The specific scenario I had in mind was one where it would help many (even most) users to have the image and its description on the same page. Personally, I would like to know: (a) would such an explicit association be required under WCAG 2.0 (Guideline 1.1)? And, even if it's not required, and (b) How could such an association be created and supported by user agents? In a case where the conventions of writing in a field like art history or media studies, etc., make it appropriate for images and their descriptions to appear on the same page, it seems like we wouldn't want to require a *redundant* description via longdesc or a description-link. But we might then want a way to indicate programmatically that a certain portion of the text on the page is explicitly intended to describe a particular image. Would the following work? <p><img src="ohno.gif" alt="cartoon"></p> <p class="caption">Figure 1. Cartoon showing members of WCAG WG with heads in their hands while Slatin harangues them.</p> <p>Figure 1 shows a group of people around a conference table. They have buried their faces in their hands, except for one individual who is wearing a name tag that says "Slatin." Slatin's mouth is open........ </p> "Good design is accessible design." 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/ <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 John M Slatin Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:13 am To: Sailesh Panchang; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Long description and image on same page (was RE: [techs] Summary of techniques teleconference 22 September 2004) Sailesh writes <blockquote> Hello John / Gez, Gez asked Does it still give the same results if the longdesc attribute was marked up with the page name, along with the document fragment identifier? Sailesh: Nope. Even WinEyes does not recognize longdesc on same page. Both JAWS and WinEyes do nothing even if you give full path of longdesc that links to same page. Actually, I wonder why one should give detailed description of the img on the same page. It is text equivalent info meant for those who cannot see the image. So it will clutter up the page if it is on the same page and might be a usability issue for sighted users unless of course the longdesc contains some explanation of the image etc. which serves all users. Then why use longdesc... just link to it. [JMS] </blockquote> You've got it, Sailesh: there are many cases where description and explanation/interpretation of a complex imageis the entire point of a document-- this is true in fields like art history, film studies, descriptive bibliography (sometimes, anyway), archaeology, architecture... sometimes in historical writing... sometimes in scientific writing. It's entirely possible that longdesc isn't the best technique to use, and in fact an explicit text link might not always be the best thing either-- I would be interested in finding/learning about techniques that would establish an explicit association between an image and its description that don't necessarily employ a linking technique, rather something that a user agent could identify and report (at the user's discretion, for example). My thought was prompted by the note about RDF techniques, which I infer could provide a way to designate a block of text as a description for a given image, so that the two items could "travel" together. Hope that makes sense. John
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2004 19:21:53 UTC