Re: [whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Pentasis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Pentasis wrote: I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt=, should be included. This has not yet been considered. May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? Because there's an issues list of several thousand issues, and as such not all issues have been considered. If we could do everything at once we'd have a spec instantly. :) Perhaps also worth noting that there's already been a quite epic amount of discussion of LONGDESC, if you care to search the archives. I suppose the text might be more accurate if it said yet been decided. A rough summary of the currently dominant view in WHATWG would be that visible descriptions are more useful than invisible descriptions and that in any case LONGDESC is poisoned by real-world abuse ( http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery ). -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis Just a random thought (not a major discussion point afaic): As I understand it, best-practice would now dictate that the image is simply explained in the actual content. I agree with this on the most part, but I can image the explanation and the image being seperated in distance from each other. Would it be helpfull for screenreaders to include a anchor-point on the image that points towards the explanatory text in such cases (which COULD be done with the longdesc), or would you think that be overkill? Bert
[whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt=, should be included. This has not yet been considered. May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? Bert
Re: [whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Pentasis wrote: I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt=, should be included. This has not yet been considered. May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? Because there's an issues list of several thousand issues, and as such not all issues have been considered. If we could do everything at once we'd have a spec instantly. :) -- Geoffrey Sneddon http://gsnedders.com/
Re: [whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: On 30 Nov 2008, at 16:40, Pentasis wrote: I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt=, should be included. This has not yet been considered. May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? Because there's an issues list of several thousand issues, and as such not all issues have been considered. If we could do everything at once we'd have a spec instantly. :) Perhaps also worth noting that there's already been a quite epic amount of discussion of LONGDESC, if you care to search the archives. I suppose the text might be more accurate if it said yet been decided. A rough summary of the currently dominant view in WHATWG would be that visible descriptions are more useful than invisible descriptions and that in any case LONGDESC is poisoned by real-world abuse ( http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery ). -- Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Re: [whatwg] Question regarding accessibility for img
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Pentasis wrote: I notice that it says in the spec under the img-section: There has been some suggestion that the longdesc attribute from HTML4, or some other mechanism that is more powerful than alt=, should be included. This has not yet been considered. May I ask why it has not been considered (yet)? It has, actually, but some people disagree with the conclusion. I've updated the text accordingly. On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: A rough summary of the currently dominant view in WHATWG would be that visible descriptions are more useful than invisible descriptions and that in any case LONGDESC is poisoned by real-world abuse ( http://blog.whatwg.org/the-longdesc-lottery ). Pretty much. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
