- From: David Poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 09:43:42 -0400
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>
I'll even go further. an image is nothing to me unless if it is complex, it is described in an associated way. My preference would be that I click this and it becomes replacement and I can click out of it and that it not bring up a new window or become a new page. This is the model I suggest. I'll go even further. My assistive technology should allow me to configure it to expose the target of the longdesc automatically and it should be integrated into the content of the page from which the image springs. I'm sure I didn't get this quite right and I don't care what the mechanism is but speaking on behalf of many users, this would alleviate a large number of accessibility barriers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> To: "David Poehlman" <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com> Cc: <public-html@w3.org>; "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org> Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2008 5:06 AM Subject: Re: Is longdesc a good solution? David Poehlman wrote: > I see one problem with this that has already been mentioned. That is since > it is not widely encountered on the web, many will not know what a long > description is. > > If I see a text link, it would have to be well labeled for me to know that > it is a descriptive link. if I see a longdesc associated with a link, I > don't have to make a leap. That seems like nothing more than speculation about the usability of long description links. It's certainly not an argument against doing the study, since whether or not it really is an issue for users, would be revealed by the study itself. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 6 September 2008 13:44:22 UTC