- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 00:07:34 -0600
- To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
If we stick with the Baseline approach we have been discussing, I believe D-Link would be a BRIDGE technique with LONGDESC being required. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 9:22 AM To: WAI WCAG List Subject: [techs] d-link Test 9 In our recent straw poll, the group accepted the test for d-link: test 9 - All IMG elements that have a LONGDESC attribute also have an associated 'd-link'. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/tests/test9.html However there were several people that voted for killing it and most people voted that it be "optional". I thought we should have some discussion on the list as a result of the close decision. The "d-link" was a temporary measure to support image long descriptions until there was user agent support for the LONGDESC attribute. We know that d-link will eventually be not required so the question is - when? Is there yet enough user agent support for LONGDESC that we should not require d-link? How do we judge when there is enough support for LONGDESC that we can dump d-link. Is there something we can do to increase the support of LONGDESC so d-link can be quickly removed? Note that d-link is currently a level 1 requirement because it maps to guideline 1.1, Level 1, Success Criteria 2. I believe that it should be a level 2 or level 3 requirement. Comments appreciated. Cheers, Chris
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2005 06:07:36 UTC