- From: Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:10:17 +1100
- To: wai-xtech@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@målform.no> wrote: > Jason, when I read your comment about complexity, I started to wonder > why you eventually would see it as more complicated for the author to > do <a hidden href> compared with <a aria-hidden=true href>. > > But now I understand that what you really mean is that it would be > simpler to add longdesc=link directly on the <img>. And I won't deny > that you are right. > > However, authors might find it simpler to test how @hidden works > compared with testing how @longdesc works. Because, as you know, > authors often don't get those things right that they don't see any > effect from. [And I realize that now I talk as if the @longdesc support > won't improve.] And that's where your case founders. If @longdesc is specified properly, then there will be a mechanisms that allows authors to see its content, so the above argument doesn't apply. Any solution has to be carefully specified to increase the likehihood of consistent and useful implementations. I don't like @longdesc because I think it's just a hack to deal with a bad design decision made prior to HTML 2.0, whereby IMG is not a container element and therefore cannot have alternative content supplied. Unfortunately, decades later, we have to live with the legacy of this and other decisions. In that context, @longdesc solves a problem, but could be better specified on the user-agent side. There may be superior solutions, but the proposal discussed in this thread isn't one of them in my opinion.
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 04:10:45 UTC