Re: level of detail in alt, for a "self-describing" SVG

With the caveat that I know nothing of the subject matter, I think 
either of your descriptions would be OK. For brevity, I'd personally 
prefer the latter, but suggest indicating it's an example (whichever you 
choose to use).

Léonie.

On 11/08/2021 02:42, Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> since we don't have a clear mechanism to include a detailed description 
> for those who want it, I'm looking for thoughts on a concrete problem:
> 
> The context is an acyclic directed graph diagram in a specification. 
> Translating to "common jargon", it looks like a flowchart.
> 
> I've made an SVG, which includes a <desc> element laying out the pieces, 
> and there is text for all the labels. If you read through sequentially 
> it is various named containers that each list several labels followed by 
> their value.
> 
> I think it makes sense to write an alt attribute that describes the core 
> pieces in general terms, rather than the complete detail, because it is 
> an example anyway.
> 
> The sort of difference I am asking about is between on the one hand
> 
> "The Signature has a type, of 'RsaSignature', an issuance date of 3 
> november, a creator of 'example university public key 11', a signature 
> of 'aeunvaeournvq[e8nv', and a nonce of 123abcfeed321".
> 
> or on the other hand
> 
> "A signature with a nonce, date, algorithm used and a public key for the 
> proof's creator".
> 
> I have attached one relevant SVG, and its desc element contains text in 
> line with the more general alt I am proposing.
> 
> cheers
> 

-- 
Director @TetraLogical
https://tetralogical.com

Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2021 07:47:06 UTC