- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 01:09:33 -0400
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "Gerald G. Weichbrodt" <gerald.g.weichbrodt@ived.gm.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
aloha, kynn! Kynn Bartlett wrote, quote Yes, a "raw image" linked from a page has accessibility problems; if you create even a minimal HTML page "wrapper" around it, you can add alternative text and other information. unquote with most of today's technology, kynn, you're right -- and, yet, technically, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to point to a naked image if you utilize the LONGDESC attribute -- which, would, of course, necessitate support for LONGDESC by quote mainstream unquote browser manufacturers, and it wouldn't hurt if they were also Dublin Core [1] aware -- _then_ the user (no matter whom, no matter the type of device) could not only choose what he or she gets, but actually know (with confidence!) what one is using one's precious bandwidth to obtain... support for LONGDESC would obviously obviate the need for a wrapper, if it is unnecessary or undesired, but would still leave the user with a multitude of options, such as: render the image and the LONGDESC as one document; display the content of the file referenced via LONGDESC in a separate viewport/window, and so on... my conscience just tapped me on the shoulder to remind me that there are proxies to be built to deliver this sort of functionality on the fly to a request coming from older technology, such as an HTTP request from Lynx running on a shell account or someone running a commodore or atari that they bought on eBay, but i temporarily hushed it by reminding it that for embedded images, i use the "encase the image in a link that points at the URI referenced by the LONGDESC attribute" hack to expose the presence of long descriptions to the user by making the graphic itself a link to the URI referenced in the LONGDESC attribute set for the IMG element -- if, that is, the graphic warrants a long description -- sometimes ALT (especially when used in intelligent combination with the "title" attribute) is quite enough ... speaking of LONGDESCs, a question i've been pondering is, should a document referenced using LONGDESC include a link to the quote naked unquote image? and if not, why not? isn't that providing an equivalent alternative to the descriptor? of course, if the graphic was actually an XML based application -- marked up, in Scaleable Vector Graphics (SVG) [2] -- the image itself could not only be richly described, but distinct parts and components of that image could also be richly described, making it possible for users to get a lot, or a little, or none of the alternative information it is possible to embed in an SVG file -- depending, of course, upon the user's need or desire... just one of the many reasons why an XML-based graphics syntax, such as SVG, is far superior to rasterized (binary) graphics, but i don't need to tell you that! gregory References 1. The Dublin Core: <http://purl.org/DC/index.htm> 2. Scaleable Vector Graphics: <http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/Overview.htm8>
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2000 01:05:11 UTC