Re: sellability of D-link vs. LONGDESC

to follow up on what Phill Jenkins said:

> Al wrote:
> >Whether it will be easier to persuade and train people to
> >implement accessible websites with visible links to descriptions
> >or the LONGDESC attribute -- that's an open question and a
> >judgement call.
> 
> I believe that both the ALT= and LONGDESC= (or it's equivalent) need
> NOT be "sold" to content authors, but sold to the HTML group as
> "required".  If these attributes are missing, the HTML should be
> considered incorrect and not to spec.
> 
> The IPO should help "train" the content authors to do a good job of
> filling in the ALT= and LONGDECSC= with meaningful and appropriate
> information; elaborate descriptions for elaborate images, and null
> strings for null images (e.g., empty images used for positioning)
> 

I think we are in flaming agreement.

Sure, ALT should be _required_ in the technical requirements of
the HTML language.  

I am talking about selling the author community because I don't
see our selling job as finished when the HTML spec says that.

Part of the training is communicating to the authors why they
should care.  There is a better story to tell than "the spec made
me do it."  Yes we want to explain how to do it, including the
kinds of variations you describe.  To get them to use their
discretion effectively, we pretty much have to gain their buy-in
on the rationale behind the attributes, too.

--
Al Gilman

Received on Monday, 15 September 1997 12:14:48 UTC