- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:46:02 -0400
- To: Monika Trebo <mtrebo@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "Gregory J.Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org
Hey- Monika Trebo wrote: > > Again, as long as we don''t have something better than longdesc we > should keep it in. ...where "as good or better" includes consideration of the time and effort it has taken to get vendors to implement @longdesc, such that it can be used in the wild. Decreasing (or even changing) the set of known accessibility features seems counterproductive, since the information that @longdesc is no longer supported (or whatever term is used) willl take some time to trickle out to the general public. While I doubt there are many sites that use @longdesc correctly, those that do are likely to give due consideration to accessibility concerns in general and will represent a disproportionate number of users with accessibility needs. Therefore, those sites bear a higher weight of importance towards their intended audience, and the HTML 5.0 spec should consider that before dropping the feature (or to put it another way, should consider that a reason to add it). That said, if someone comes up with a brilliant notion that is more likely to be implemented and authored, that would also be a win. The only thing that comes to my mind is a sort of "rich tooltip" (derived from a <title> and <desc> element pair, or a section of hidden HTML content) that would act a bit like the quasi-popup I'm seeing everywhere... it can be done with CSS/JS anyway, obviously, but an easier way of doing it might be an incentive for authors... (or something for them to misuse... never mind, bad idea). Regards- -Doug
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 03:47:09 UTC