- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:22:59 +1000 (EST)
- To: WAI <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
The reason behind using the ALT tagged image as the D-link is that it does not put little D's all over a page, unless that page is being viewed without images. In that case, they are handy things to have. <TIRADE> <HEAD><TITLE>Why D-link is a sensible standard to use</TITLE></HEAD> <BODY> While the D-link is not a standard as such, its use is noted by a growing number of 'authorities' on accessibility issues, such as W3C and Blind associations. Although blind people are not automaticaly handed information about D-links (or anything else - they have to ask for it), the D-link convention seems as sensible as any other before next-generation browsers are commonly used, and it is the one currently used. (IBM's website is an example of current application in a commercial setting) Using LONGDESC but not using a D-link in some form, while agreeing to the concept of accessibility is effectively rejecting any practical move towards it until browser companies can introduce an implementation which achieves significant market penetration (admittedly only in a target market - Lynx may be well placed for this). Unfortunately browser companies do not control things like the use of latest versions (much as they may like to). Accessible design is a responsibility of designers, in the same way that wheelchair access is a responsibility for architects. Second class design may still be accessible, in the same way that the Brisbane convention centre is wheelchair accessible (most of it) - it is possible, but it is unnecessarily difficult. Producing such is simply doing second-class work. Has anybody else gathered actual figures on teh use of images on websites, and how many of them are seen? Although my figure of only about half of users at most seeing the images on a large University's website were a surprise to me, I have not had the opportunity to follow up the study, nor has it been suggested by anybody that they are unusual. If they are even vaguely in the ballpark then D-linking is not just for the blind, but for a substantial portion of the market. It is also true that the D-link relies on teh description provided being any good. But that is beyond the scope of what can be recommended by W3C - we just have to trust people's intelligence sometimes. </TIRADE> Does anybody have a good idea what an implementation of LONGDESC might look like? An optional 'D' placed after each image perhaps, or at the beginning/end of a page as per Ree's suggestion? (The difficulty with that is that it would need to be held until HTML 5.0, or be used as a convention, in which case we may as well stick with the existing convention of D-links) Charles McCathieNevile
Received on Friday, 24 April 1998 03:42:17 UTC