- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 11:39:42 -0800
- To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>, "Scott Luebking" <phoenixl@sonic.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
At 7:13 AM -0500 12/24/01, David Poehlman wrote: >please explain what is more or less elligant? An "elegant" solution is one which cleanly and tidily solves the problems and requires no particular "nasty hacks or kludges" to get around. For most programmers or software developers, a nice elegant solution is much preferable to a quick and dirty fix. Elegant solutions tend to be closer to the standard in both a literal meaning and in intent, but may be less effective in practice. For example, consider the case of "D-links". D-links are _not_ an elegant solution. They put up a dirty little blue "d" on the screen and they're not clear how they work or why, if you don't know what they are. But they _do_ provide access to the longer description of the graphical object. The LONGDESC attribute, on the other hand, is closer to the idea of an "elegant" solution, as it uses an established mechanism within HTML -- linking via an attribute -- to identify the longer description. However, it fails in practice, since it's not widely supported by browsers. (Is it supported by any mainstream browsers these days?) An even more elegant solution would be probably be something using XLink and the content of the <img> element, to provide a fallback that is going to be accessible even to older browsers -- you can do this with <object> for example. (The fallback via content part, not the XLink part.) --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Monday, 24 December 2001 14:53:44 UTC