<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Quiz 1.1.7: Long Descriptions redux</title>
	<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/</link>
	<description>Seeking Best Accessibility Practices</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 09:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-448</link>
		<author>Ben</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 00:51:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-448</guid>
					<description>I would not use long descriptions, but more likely a mix of C, D and E (I see the combination of these as being similar to "B" but providing only key information and using the footnote/link for detail).

Hard to say. Some charts have a lot of value and allow one to compare many things and draw many conclusions. Other charts are just used as a way to highlight something visually... draw attention to where one data point stands out from the pack. I think the approach should depend on the information being conveyed, more than it being "a chart".

If you intend someone to get all the data from the chart, compare and contrast various values, then a data table should be provided that gives comprehensive information. It may be possible to produce an "accessible chart" in some cases (e.g. image bars in a data table), rather than a single image.

On the other hand, if a chart is intended to highlight one or two key points, those key points should be highlighted in the alt text. Simply describing the values of the data would be a literal representation of the chart, without the added meaning a chart can convey so effectively.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would not use long descriptions, but more likely a mix of C, D and E (I see the combination of these as being similar to &#8220;B&#8221; but providing only key information and using the footnote/link for detail).</p>
<p>Hard to say. Some charts have a lot of value and allow one to compare many things and draw many conclusions. Other charts are just used as a way to highlight something visually&#8230; draw attention to where one data point stands out from the pack. I think the approach should depend on the information being conveyed, more than it being &#8220;a chart&#8221;.</p>
<p>If you intend someone to get all the data from the chart, compare and contrast various values, then a data table should be provided that gives comprehensive information. It may be possible to produce an &#8220;accessible chart&#8221; in some cases (e.g. image bars in a data table), rather than a single image.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if a chart is intended to highlight one or two key points, those key points should be highlighted in the alt text. Simply describing the values of the data would be a literal representation of the chart, without the added meaning a chart can convey so effectively.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ingo</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-449</link>
		<author>Ingo</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 06:47:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-449</guid>
					<description>E: endnotes
I think endnotes might be easier to use if you want to compare two images/charts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E: endnotes<br />
I think endnotes might be easier to use if you want to compare two images/charts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anup Shah</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-450</link>
		<author>Anup Shah</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 12:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-450</guid>
					<description>What about an accessible bar chart constructed using tables, rather than an image? Here is a great example: http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/02/06/14-accessible-bar-chart

You can even go further than simple bar charts with one bar per column as this example shows (scroll down a bit):
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about an accessible bar chart constructed using tables, rather than an image? Here is a great example: <a href="http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/02/06/14-accessible-bar-chart" rel="nofollow">http://www.standards-schmandards.com/index.php?2005/02/06/14-accessible-bar-chart</a></p>
<p>You can even go further than simple bar charts with one bar per column as this example shows (scroll down a bit):<br />
<a href="http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-451</link>
		<author>Tony</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 13:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-451</guid>
					<description>That is a tough one.  If I had access to users of the assistive technology, I'd go with E.  If not, I'd go with A.    Because if I went with something 'new' like E, I'd want user-acceptance by the assistive technology users.  Otherwsie I'd probably go with the WCAG recommendation, figuring that the vendors (and/or users as well) read or are aware of this standard.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is a tough one.  If I had access to users of the assistive technology, I&#8217;d go with E.  If not, I&#8217;d go with A.    Because if I went with something &#8216;new&#8217; like E, I&#8217;d want user-acceptance by the assistive technology users.  Otherwsie I&#8217;d probably go with the WCAG recommendation, figuring that the vendors (and/or users as well) read or are aware of this standard.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Farlops</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-452</link>
		<author>Mr. Farlops</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 07:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-452</guid>
					<description>I still choose A. Why? Because the WCAG is a published standard and this gives us all--assitive technology vendors, web page designers and browser makers--something to aim towards. Otherwise we're all just shooting randomly at different things.

We call all look at the WCAG and say, "Well, that's not the way I would've solved the problem but at least I know everyone is now focusing on supporting that way, flawed though it is. I'd better do the same."

The browsers did a lot of catching up in the 5 years to support standards. In the last three or so years the web designers did a lot of catching up. Now it's the assistive technology vendors. My advice is to be patient and stick to the published standards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still choose A. Why? Because the WCAG is a published standard and this gives us all&#8211;assitive technology vendors, web page designers and browser makers&#8211;something to aim towards. Otherwise we&#8217;re all just shooting randomly at different things.</p>
<p>We call all look at the WCAG and say, &#8220;Well, that&#8217;s not the way I would&#8217;ve solved the problem but at least I know everyone is now focusing on supporting that way, flawed though it is. I&#8217;d better do the same.&#8221;</p>
<p>The browsers did a lot of catching up in the 5 years to support standards. In the last three or so years the web designers did a lot of catching up. Now it&#8217;s the assistive technology vendors. My advice is to be patient and stick to the published standards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Easton</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-453</link>
		<author>Bob Easton</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-453</guid>
					<description>Using the "stick to the published standards" logic, we should be finding "D-links" all over the net.  We don't.  They were a bad idea and the W3C has made them deprecated in WCAG 2.0.

Sticking to the published standard didn't help wood spoked wheels survive very long on automobiles, did it?

We can stick to the published standard, or we can help improve the published standard with better techniques.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Using the &#8220;stick to the published standards&#8221; logic, we should be finding &#8220;D-links&#8221; all over the net.  We don&#8217;t.  They were a bad idea and the W3C has made them deprecated in WCAG 2.0.</p>
<p>Sticking to the published standard didn&#8217;t help wood spoked wheels survive very long on automobiles, did it?</p>
<p>We can stick to the published standard, or we can help improve the published standard with better techniques.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Georg</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-454</link>
		<author>Georg</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-454</guid>
					<description>B is my general solution when an image - chart or whatever - need description for it all to make sense.

E, visible to all in most cases, looks like a good option.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>B is my general solution when an image - chart or whatever - need description for it all to make sense.</p>
<p>E, visible to all in most cases, looks like a good option.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-456</link>
		<author>Marco</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:19:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-456</guid>
					<description>Primary E, but only visible to the screen readers. Reason being that the images are all artwork related. 

I can also see method C working, but that would depend on how descriptive you want to be. Trying to describe artwork in 60-64 characters would be pretty tough to effectively do.

(In fact, trying to describe any artwork to someone who is visually impaired is tough to do.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Primary E, but only visible to the screen readers. Reason being that the images are all artwork related. </p>
<p>I can also see method C working, but that would depend on how descriptive you want to be. Trying to describe artwork in 60-64 characters would be pretty tough to effectively do.</p>
<p>(In fact, trying to describe any artwork to someone who is visually impaired is tough to do.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Stenhouse</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-457</link>
		<author>Mike Stenhouse</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-457</guid>
					<description>I had a similar problem when consulting for a large UK supermarket. I eventually went with linking up the image to a longdesc-type page. An added bonus was that the image content effectively became searchable. The full description of the image could also be of benefit to sighted users who want more detail than the images immediately provided without squinting.

One modification to A is to write out your close window link with Javascript, checking for the presence of a window.opener. That way if the window isn't a popup, you don't get the close link...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a similar problem when consulting for a large UK supermarket. I eventually went with linking up the image to a longdesc-type page. An added bonus was that the image content effectively became searchable. The full description of the image could also be of benefit to sighted users who want more detail than the images immediately provided without squinting.</p>
<p>One modification to A is to write out your close window link with Javascript, checking for the presence of a window.opener. That way if the window isn&#8217;t a popup, you don&#8217;t get the close link&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jules</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-470</link>
		<author>Jules</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-470</guid>
					<description>I am surprised no one mentioned the "D" link which is a link using the link text "D" (I have seen various incarnations of this, D, [D], (D)) to the longdesc page (in case a browser doesn't support longdesc).

Another possibility might be to create a caption and then "hide" it using left: -1000 so that it doesn't take visible space but is available for screen readers. I know that Andy Clarke uses (used? I haven't checked lately) this method to "hide" the Skip Nav link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am surprised no one mentioned the &#8220;D&#8221; link which is a link using the link text &#8220;D&#8221; (I have seen various incarnations of this, D, [D], (D)) to the longdesc page (in case a browser doesn&#8217;t support longdesc).</p>
<p>Another possibility might be to create a caption and then &#8220;hide&#8221; it using left: -1000 so that it doesn&#8217;t take visible space but is available for screen readers. I know that Andy Clarke uses (used? I haven&#8217;t checked lately) this method to &#8220;hide&#8221; the Skip Nav link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Thompson</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-471</link>
		<author>Phil Thompson</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 15:03:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-471</guid>
					<description>Jules: No-one has mentioned the "D" link, I imagine, because we have all read Joe Clarke's book, which rubbishes them, and therefore disregarded them from our thought process. Actually, I have never seen a "D" link on a site anywhere so it surprises me when you say you've seen various incarnations of their usage.

I am however intrigued by the idea of hiding a description off-left of the screen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jules: No-one has mentioned the &#8220;D&#8221; link, I imagine, because we have all read Joe Clarke&#8217;s book, which rubbishes them, and therefore disregarded them from our thought process. Actually, I have never seen a &#8220;D&#8221; link on a site anywhere so it surprises me when you say you&#8217;ve seen various incarnations of their usage.</p>
<p>I am however intrigued by the idea of hiding a description off-left of the screen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Easton</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-472</link>
		<author>Bob Easton</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-472</guid>
					<description>Jules: We asked about d-links as bonus points part of &lt;a href="http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/12/quiz-115-a-picture-requires-a-thousand-words/" rel="nofollow"&gt;the previous quiz&lt;/a&gt;.  No one reports seeing them used in real life.  The W3C is marking then "deprecated" in &lt;acronym title="Web Content Accessibility Guidelines"&gt;WCAG&lt;/acronym&gt; version 2.0.  They're a failed idea and even the W3C recognizes that fact.

Phil: We covered quite a few hiding techniques in a series of testing.  "Off left" is my favorite.  Check out &lt;a href="http://www.access-matters.com/screen-reader-test-results/" rel="nofollow"&gt;the results&lt;/a&gt; and examine the test cases for coding techniques.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jules: We asked about d-links as bonus points part of <a href="http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/12/quiz-115-a-picture-requires-a-thousand-words/" rel="nofollow">the previous quiz</a>.  No one reports seeing them used in real life.  The W3C is marking then &#8220;deprecated&#8221; in <acronym title="Web Content Accessibility Guidelines">WCAG</acronym> version 2.0.  They&#8217;re a failed idea and even the W3C recognizes that fact.</p>
<p>Phil: We covered quite a few hiding techniques in a series of testing.  &#8220;Off left&#8221; is my favorite.  Check out <a href="http://www.access-matters.com/screen-reader-test-results/" rel="nofollow">the results</a> and examine the test cases for coding techniques.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Belov</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-522</link>
		<author>Charles Belov</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-522</guid>
					<description>sfmuni.com uses the D link, which we learned of from the VTA, San Jose's transit agency. If it's been deprecated, we'll look at replacing it. I'd say A, no close window button, or else put the data table next to the graph and don't bother hiding it or putting it elsewhere.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sfmuni.com uses the D link, which we learned of from the VTA, San Jose&#8217;s transit agency. If it&#8217;s been deprecated, we&#8217;ll look at replacing it. I&#8217;d say A, no close window button, or else put the data table next to the graph and don&#8217;t bother hiding it or putting it elsewhere.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blooms</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-894</link>
		<author>Blooms</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-894</guid>
					<description>thank you for interesting articles</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thank you for interesting articles</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alfred Fuller</title>
		<link>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-901</link>
		<author>Alfred Fuller</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 03:27:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.access-matters.com/2005/06/19/quiz-116-long-descriptions-redux/#comment-901</guid>
					<description>I like B best, even though it takes up territory. If the charts do not add to the page, but merely repeat information, they don't need to be there. it they add to the information, there should be space to describe them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like B best, even though it takes up territory. If the charts do not add to the page, but merely repeat information, they don&#8217;t need to be there. it they add to the information, there should be space to describe them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
