RE: Is CHOICE a good solution? (was RE: Is longdesc a good solution? (was: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>))

James Craig wrote:
> In the context of the gallery, that information is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree.  If the information contained within that image is
totally irrelevant, why was the image provided?  It certainly is not there
simply for "decoration".  In fact, even if the accompanying text is complete
*in context* to the specific site, the accompanying text describes the
"how", possibly the "why" but certainly not the "what" - whether or not the
author considers that germane or not here is not the point; the issue is
that the visual asset does many things, and yet the associated text only
does *one* (or at best possibly 2) thing(s).  Using tools such as @longdesc
allows authors the ability to assign more than *one thing* to an asset in an
unobtrusive manner for those who need/choose to delve deeper.

> In the
> context of the images original use, it is the main content of the
> page, and so should be associated with the image via aria-describedby.
> This was the reason I mentioned the VC example.

And yes, aria-describedby could be yet another choice.  Choice is good!  But
aria-described by presumes in-page description, or a link to an external
asset (a textual equiv) thus labeled.  Perhaps we could wrap the image with
an anchor and use the aria-describedby attribute, so that you could click on
the image and get to that information.  But what if, instead, the site owner
wanted it so that if you clicked on the image, it took you to the original
instance of the chart?  Faced with that scenario James, how would you deal
with the problem? (and suggesting that an in-the-clear link to a fuller
description is going to be any more palpable than a "D" link doesn't cut


Received on Monday, 8 September 2008 19:35:37 UTC