Re: sellability of D-link vs. LONGDESC

On Tue, 16 Sep 1997, Jan Richards wrote:

> In addition, extra-cost access solutions such as LONGDESC should
> not be made required because any popular browser that ceased to
> display images without proper text would probably be overtaken by
> its competitors that ignored the change. 

I don't understand your comment. The proposed longdesc
attribute doesn't require changes to graphical browsers.
Its true that we would need changes to text-only and
speech-based browsers but thats comparatively simple.
Lynx can be easily upgraded to offer longdesc support
as can emacs-speak. What we need then is an educational
campaign to get content providers to take accessibility
into account, and to get people relying on speech to
upgrade their browsers. The WAI IPO will be able to help
with this.

Does anyone have statistics on the types of machines
in current use for speech access?  E.g. are 30% using
i386 machines with 40Mb hard drives and 640kB Ram?

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)

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 1997 11:54:12 UTC