- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:43:40 -0700
- To: David Suarez De Lis <phdavidl@usc.es>
- Cc: WAI-IG Mailing List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 11:16 a.m. 04/24/98 +0200, David Suarez De Lis wrote: >a Lynx-friendly solution I adopted a while ago is that when I have a >picture I want people to see is make an anchor to that pic so people may >download it (maybe they can see it in another place, was my reasoning.) >I hadn't really thought about describing the picture[...] >for those who weren't able to see it. This isn't a bad idea. ><a href="d-link.html#me1" > title="A picture of me - follow this link for a description"> > <img src="images/me1.jpg" > alt="This is me - follow this link for a description" > height=Y width=X longdesc="d-link.html#me1"> ></a> The only problem, of course, is when that image is used as a link already. >This way everybody wins. d-link.html may even be a "canonical" file the >same way index.html (or even home.html) is now... Well, except it's "canonical" only because the _server_ (not the web page creator nor the web browser) thinks it is. In other words, when I say 'http://www.hwg.org/', it's the HWG web server that chooses to give me index.html, not my browser that asks for it. >Visual UA's could provide a colored border around the figure >and voice browsers could simply say "Description available" or something >the like. Except with visual UAs, the web author would want to turn this off. Why? Because web authors _love_ turning off borders around pictures. Forcing a border back on them for the sake of giving accessibility features doesn't mean they'll "just have to live with the border" -- it means they'll dump the accessibility features. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@hwg.org> Governing Board Member, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org Education and Outreach working group member, Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/
Received on Friday, 24 April 1998 12:42:10 UTC