Re: Long desc techniques - what is the url pointing to?

I would agree that the longdesc page should be accessible, and should contain
a repeat of the image being described - after all, that isn't going to make
any difference to people who can't see it, but will help people who are, for
example, trying to get a clearer understanding of what is supposed to be
conveyed (someone with very ow vision, who mostly sees a blur, or someone who
simply doesn't understand what is in the image).

Using something like an XSLT to automatically include the longdesc in
addition to or in place of an image is an intersting idea for a small tool or
for a proxy-based tool.

cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Jim Ley wrote:

  "Scarlett Julian (ED)":

  > Excuse my obvious lack of grasping your point Jim but why is that
  > description page inaccessible? If it contains plain text and nothing
  else it
  > can be accessed by any browser.

  Yes, but not by any _user_ (Checkpoint 3.4 in WCAG 2.0), the examples
  also makes little sense in isolation, they describe an image which unless
  you've used the longdesc on an image to get to that url they aren't
  meaningful (they describe images which you don't even know where to find
  them.)

  Are the longdescs intentionally only plain-text for some reason? (perhaps
  because the url is designed for UA's to replace the image with the
  longdesc rather than a url for humans to actually visit.)  Or should I
  make the longdesc page accessible?

  Jim.


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 07:00:22 UTC