Re: Dave Raggett: Re: IMG ALT attribute in HTML 4.0 (fwd)

I am inclined to support Dave's point; it's more or less a case of "what
harm will it do" -- none. It provides an immediate solution to current (and
older) browsers, it certainly provides a reasonable solution to the
eventual OBJECT transition. Couger will be out on the streets very soon and
my understanding is that several browers are still heavily involved in
development.

What I also recognize is that just because we add LONGDESC to IMG, does not
mean that content creators will use it anymore than the use ALT now. BUT,
if we do our part by informing them, we can encourage content creators to
use today's mechanism and prepare for the better OBJECT mechanism in the
future.

Since my first Web Techniques article came out a week ago, I've had dozens
of requests from publishers, webmasters, ISPs, and the like for updated
information, hints, guidelines, etc..etc...It certainly appears that people
are willing to "do the right thing" if we show them how.

- Mike  


At 03:50 PM 9/11/97 +0200, Daniel Dardailler wrote:
>
>Hello
>
>At the August meeting, it was decided that we would not ask for the
>LONGDESC attribute for IMG but rely on OBJECT and future metadata
>work.
>
>Dave raised some good points in this message and I'd like this forum
>to think again about this issue. Also, since the work is mostly done
>(it's in the DTD of the current HTML4 draft), maybe we should keep it
>just for redundancy.
>
>PS: this should really happen on the new Format&Protocol mailing list
>(w3c-wai-fp@w3.org) but the list is not populated yet and the FP WG
>has to be formally announced to W3C members first. We'll move to FP
>soon.
>
>
>
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>CC: www-html@w3.org
>
>> Again, TITLE seems appropriate for a short description and
>> LONGDESC for a long description.  What seems odd in the DTD at
>> <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Cougar/Cougar.dtd> is that the LONGDESC
>> attribute was added to IMG but not to OBJECT.  Is this just an
>> oversight? 
>
>The discussion in the HTML working group on long descriptions
>shifted from LONGDESC to making sure that image maps are supported
>for OBJECT. With agreement on image maps for OBJECT, the LONGDESC
>attribute will disappear from IMG unless there is agreement that we
>still need it. 
>
>How would authors use OBJECT and IMG to provide accessible pages
>bearing in mind the likelihood that many people will be browsing
>the Web for a long time to come using browsers that don't support
>OBJECT, let alone shapes.
>
>One approach is to use IMG with the alt attribute and client-side
>image maps. This is well supported but doesn't allow authors to
>provide long descriptions with rich text.
>
> Approach A:
>
>  <IMG src=map.gif usemap="#flavors" alt="Ice cream flavors:">
>  <MAP name="flavors">
>    <AREA alt="Vanilla" shape=poly coords="..." href=...>
>    <AREA alt="Chocolate" shape=poly coords="..." href=...>
>    ...
>  </MAP>
>
>Another approach is to use OBJECT with the shapes attribute.  The
>OBJECT element then contains a rich text description with hypertext
>links that double up to define hotzones on the image.  This is the
>preferred long term solution.  Browsers that don't support OBJECT
>don't render the image and only show the textual description. 
>
> Approach B:
>
>  <OBJECT data=map.gif shapes>
>    <P>We offer a full range of ice creams including:
>    <A shape=poly coords="..." href=...>Vanilla</a>,
>    <A shape=poly coords="..." href=...>Chocolate</a>,
>    ...
>  </OBJECT>
>
>You could place the IMG and MAP elements within the OBJECT
>element, but this doesn't really solve anything.
>
>Perhaps this doesn't matter - perhaps we should just go all out to
>encourage people to upgrade to browsers that support OBJECT with
>shapes, e.g. for the 5.0 round of browsers from the big two. I like
>this approach - but can we get enough content providers to support
>it? 
>
>The new feature is not wonderfully backwards compatible.
>Authors can't provide good graphics on old and new browsers
>whilst at the same time providing rich text descriptions.
>There are two solutions as far as I can see:
>
>  a) use a tool to generate different versions of HTML
>     for delivery to browsers according to the user agent.
>
>  b) add LONGDESC to IMG
>
>If the 5.0 browsers from the big two support OBJECT shapes
>and enough people upgrade quickly, then perhaps authors will
>be happy enough to start using it. In the meantime authors
>will be adding to the enormous number of Web pages that provide
>a poor experience to people with text-only browsers.
>
>So should the HTML 4.0 spec include LONGDESC or should we
>just rely on OBJECT shapes and encourage content providers
>to exploit the user agent header?
>
>Regards,
>
>- -- Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
>phone: +44 122 578 2521 (office) +44 385 320 444 (gsm mobile)
>World Wide Web Consortium (on assignment from HP Labs)
>
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>

-------------------------
Michael G. Paciello                      Executive Director, 
E-Mail: mailto:paciello@yuri.org         Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation
Tel: +1 603 598 9544                     URL: http://www.yuri.org/
FAX: +1 603 598 2839                     Promoting Accessibility Awareness!

Please Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:   http://www.yuri.org/donate.html

Received on Thursday, 11 September 1997 12:07:30 UTC