Re: Return of the londesc conundrum

For images that are not part of graphical links, the solution I like is 
to use a details/summary component (or custom equivalent), like this:


<details>

<summary><img src="image.png alt="Short text description here"></details>


<p>Longer description here...</p>

</details>


Léonie.


On 14/01/2022 14:28, Jonathan Cohn wrote:
> What is the suggested pattern for providing additional information about a graphic at this time? Is it Figure with fig figcaption? I would think this not ideal for more explicit descriptions of graphics. Or perhaps a link surrounding the omg often used to bring up a full size image should also have text about the image.
> Thanks!
> Jonathan Cohn
>   
>
>> On Jan 14, 2022, at 7:17 AM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@tetralogical.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is almost no support for longdesc in browsers or by screen readers anymore. I haven't checked since June last year, but the results at that time are documented here:
>>
>> https://test-cases.tink.uk/longdesc/index.html
>>
>>
>> Léonie.
>>
>> On 14/01/2022 07:02, Stephane Deschamps wrote:
>>> Hello fellow accessibility people,
>>>
>>> I remember the age-long battle to keep longdesc into the spec, and then moving it to its own[1] as the main spec marked it as deprecated. It is now marked as **obsolete and non-conforming** in the HTML5.2 spec[2] so I'm at a loss as to whether one can implement it or not, considering one official recommendation versus the other.
>>>
>>> Could anyone clear that up for me please?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any input!
>>> Stephane
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/
>>> [2] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
>>>
>> -- 
>> Director @TetraLogical
>> https://tetralogical.com
>>
>>
-- 
Director @TetraLogical
https://tetralogical.com

Received on Friday, 14 January 2022 14:48:58 UTC