Alt-text Tags and D-links

  • Thread starter Luigi Donatello Asero
  • Start date
R

rf

Luigi Donatello Asero wrote
I am looking for example of D-links

What it a D-link?

Ah, I see. This page has obviously led you to the incorrect conclusion that
there are such things as "Alt-text Tags", also mentioned in your subject
line.

Well, there is no such thing. There is the alt attribute of the image
element, meant to be displayed when the browser can not display the image.

As to exactly what a D-links is: I have no bloody idea. That page up there
you quoted is a load of crap. Pay no attention to it.

Look at this:

<quote>
<script type="text/javascript">
<!-- #bbinclude "scripts.incl" -->
<!-- //hide
</quote>

and what on earth is this:
<quote>
<p class="spread2"><img src="images/dottedline.gif" alt="" width="371"
height="3" /><br />
</quote>

The above indicates the author of the page has no idea at all about Real Web
Authoring.

Where on the planet do you dig up all these things? I would think that you
would be far better off making *your* content better rather than looking at
all the rubbish sites you inflict on us.
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

rf said:
Luigi Donatello Asero wrote


What it a D-link?


Ah, I see. This page has obviously led you to the incorrect conclusion that
there are such things as "Alt-text Tags", also mentioned in your subject
line.

Well, there is no such thing. There is the alt attribute of the image
element, meant to be displayed when the browser can not display the image.

As to exactly what a D-links is: I have no bloody idea. That page up there
you quoted is a load of crap. Pay no attention to it.
I do not like the idea of reading information only from one source. You may
like it if you want to.
Also, I
wonder whethere you visited the following page and read its content before
writing
this post. You may want to read here.

http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/guideline1.html

--
Luigi ( un italiano che vive in Svezia)
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/it/svezia.html
http://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/lagenhetitalien3.html
 
R

rf

I do not like the idea of reading information only from one source.

Even the crap?

As you wish...
Also, I
wonder whethere you visited the following page and read its content before
writing
this post.

No, I have not visited that page, probably because this it the first time I
have seen it mentioned. If you want me to read something to understand what
you are talking about then state it up front, in your original post, not as
an afterthought.

I also do not agree with a lot of the stuff on that page.
 
J

John Brandt

See http://www.mainecite.org/

The use of a "d-link" is one of a number of methodologies used to
assist persons with disabilities, specifically persons with visual
disabilities. This method is/was particularly important/valuable for
complex images (e.g., graphs and charts) where a lengthy description
is needed to help the user understand the graphic.

The primary accessible web design method to address images is with the
use of the ALT attribute (commonly referred to as the "ALT Tag). Since
older Assistive Technology devices (certain text readers) did not
always support the ALT attribute, the "little-d" was suggested and
developed. The "little-d" never really caught on.

Another method is the use of the Long Description attribute
(LONGDESC="") which was adopted by the W3C as the offical method for
dealing with images that need long descriptions. Regretfully, there
are very few (if any) browsers or AT devices that support this
attribute.

For more information visit WebAIM
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/6



jeb
 
L

Luigi Donatello Asero

See http://www.mainecite.org/

The use of a "d-link" is one of a number of methodologies used to
assist persons with disabilities, specifically persons with visual
disabilities. This method is/was particularly important/valuable for
complex images (e.g., graphs and charts) where a lengthy description
is needed to help the user understand the graphic.

The primary accessible web design method to address images is with the
use of the ALT attribute (commonly referred to as the "ALT Tag). Since
older Assistive Technology devices (certain text readers) did not
always support the ALT attribute, the "little-d" was suggested and
developed. The "little-d" never really caught on.
Another method is the use of the Long Description attribute
(LONGDESC="") which was adopted by the W3C as the offical method for
dealing with images that need long descriptions. Regretfully, there
are very few (if any) browsers or AT devices that support this
attribute.

For more information visit WebAIM
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/6



jeb

As far as I understand the D-link is useful in case the browser does not
understand the "longdesc"
See
http://ncam.wgbh.org/cdrom/guideline/guideline1.html
and my page www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/lagenhetitalien3.html
If you click on the D you open a page which will describe the photo ( the
description is under construction)
 
J

jake

John Brandt said:

Interesting 'accessibility-oriented' site -- with some good examples of
the d-link. Also http://www.jebswebs.com/
The use of a "d-link" is one of a number of methodologies used to
assist persons with disabilities, specifically persons with visual
disabilities. This method is/was particularly important/valuable for
complex images (e.g., graphs and charts) where a lengthy description
is needed to help the user understand the graphic.

The primary accessible web design method to address images is with the
use of the ALT attribute (commonly referred to as the "ALT Tag). Since
older Assistive Technology devices (certain text readers) did not
always support the ALT attribute, the "little-d" was suggested and
developed. The "little-d" never really caught on.
The d-link is pretty much a 'de facto' standard for providing a link to
a description page.

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/publi
c_alttext.hcsp
Another method is the use of the Long Description attribute
(LONGDESC="") which was adopted by the W3C as the offical method for
dealing with images that need long descriptions. Regretfully, there
are very few (if any) browsers or AT devices that support this
attribute.

The 'longdesc' is fully supported by IBM's HPR (Home Page Reader) --
although I would tend to provide both a longdesc in the <img> (for those
AT UAs that understand it), plus an adjacent d-link for those that
don't.

-- as with your 'Main CITE' logo.

There seems to be no standard for the visual representation of a d-link.
I've seen:
(a) D
(b) d
(c) [d]

Personally, I tend to use 'd'.


For more information visit WebAIM
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/images/6



jeb
regards.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Luigi Donatello Asero said:
I am looking for example of D-links
http://ncam.wgbh.org/accessncam.html

Why ? They're a stupid idea from people who have no real idea about
accessibility. The WGBH site you refer to, and the mainecite site too,
are both poorly accessible sites. Their use of "d links" is bogus and
the rest of their coding is poor too.

Some clues:

d-link - A terrible idea. It's the "one pixel gif" of accessibility.
A stupid idea, bolted on to a page in a spirit of "build something out
of the simple tools we already have" and entirely ignoring the real
ways to do it better.

These are sites about accessibility, that are themselves poorly
accessible. Can one really pay much attention to them, when they can't
even achieve what they're advocating?

Accessiblity and Bobby icons. Any page that shows these seems doomed
to be a poorly accessible page, coded by idiots. It shouldn't be, and
there's no way it needs to be, but an empirical look at what's
actually out there bears this out.
 
J

jake

Andy said:
Why ? They're a stupid idea from people who have no real idea about
accessibility.

Says who? What's your basis for such a judgement?
The WGBH site you refer to, and the mainecite site too,
are both poorly accessible sites.

What do you find 'inaccessible' about the http://www.mainecite.org/
site? Specifically.
Their use of "d links" is bogus and
the rest of their coding is poor too.

Some clues:

d-link - A terrible idea.

Why? Why is it 'terrible'?
It's the "one pixel gif" of accessibility.

The 1-pixel .gif -- one of the worlds great inventions; the 'Swiss army
knife' of accessibility. So what's wrong? -- suggest a substitute.
A stupid idea, bolted on to a page in a spirit of "build something out
of the simple tools we already have" and entirely ignoring the real
ways to do it better.

Which are?
These are sites about accessibility, that are themselves poorly
accessible. Can one really pay much attention to them, when they can't
even achieve what they're advocating?
Accessiblity and Bobby icons. Any page that shows these seems doomed
to be a poorly accessible page, coded by idiots. It shouldn't be, and
there's no way it needs to be, but an empirical look at what's
actually out there bears this out.

Examples?

You make a lot of claims, but give little evidence to support them.

Are you serious or is a quiet day and you felt like a bit of trolling?

regards.
 
R

rf

jake wrote
Dingley wrote

The 1-pixel .gif -- one of the worlds great inventions; the 'Swiss army
knife' of accessibility. So what's wrong? -- suggest a substitute.

In <u><em><strong>ALL</strong></em></u> cases where it is used: a little
tiny bit of CSS.
 
J

jake

rf said:
jake wrote

In <u><em><strong>ALL</strong></em></u> cases where it is used: a little
tiny bit of CSS.
Hmmm .... not sure what you're saying. Do you want to run that past me
one more time .... with a bit of explanation? or an example, even?

Thanks.
 
R

rf

jake wrote
You said "suggest a substitute". there it is, just up there ^. Ok then:

Which part of:

</quote>

did you fail to understand? CSS readily and correctly replaces 1 pixel gifs.
Hmmm .... not sure what you're saying. Do you want to run that past me
one more time .... with a bit of explanation? or an example, even?

No, it does not work that way. *You* have said 1 pixel gifs are good. *I*
have said they are bad. I don't have to provide an example where 1 pixel
gifs are bad (although I could, look at just about any site out there). It
is up to you to provide an example where you think a 1 pixels gif is good.

Please now do so, with an emphasis on why it aids accessibility.

I will then replace it with suitable, and more appropriate, CSS.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,902
Latest member
Elena68X5

Latest Threads

Top