- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org (WAI Working Group)
to follow up on what Jason White said: > > Stated more generally, my question is whether guidelines that are > compatible with existing implementations and standards, but not > objectionable on the ground that, like the d-link proposal, they result in > substantial detriment to the visual appearance of a document, could be > developed to accommodate the Longdesc requirement with respect to image > maps. > If we are going to decline the gracious offer of the LONGDESC attribute I think we owe Dave and Mike _et al._ a carefully researched rationale. At minimum I hope we can get both some relevant users and some relevant authors to assess some actual examples that work within what can be done now. Find pages the authors rate tops in appearance and see what we have to do to them to make them meet users' standards of usabilty. Find pages the users rate tops in usability, and see what we have to do to them to make them meet authors' appearance standards. Visible links don't have to be ugly; the do have to be styled right. Basic worker unit for page rewrites is a two-person team: one sighted, one visually impaired or blind. Gregg and Chuck L.: any hope of this? -- Al Gilman
Received on Friday, 12 September 1997 12:21:13 UTC