RE: The use cases table, modified, for comment

Hi Deborah,

I think PF was relying on us to provide information about the table called "Implementation Complexity" as well.

I think it would be a good idea to include Ivan's changes.

Given the extent of the feedback, I recommend sending comments to PF this week if possible.

Thanks,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Kaplan [mailto:dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 9:57 AM
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: public-dpub-accessibility@w3.org
Subject: Re: The use cases table, modified, for comment

> Deborah,
> I have made some very minor changes mostly on the first table; have put it into a separate branch on the repo:
> 
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/ivan-comment-on-analysis/ext
> ended-description-analysis.html

Thank you, Ivan.

> - the second table says 'no' to 'exposed meaningfully to the 
> accessibility API and UA' for the column on 'details with src and role'. I am not sure that is fair.

Our definition of "meaningfully" for the purposes of this table is "in a way that the API and UA can understand this is further description". In other words, longdesc and describedby both give enough information to say that this is specifically a description of the referred-to object; longdesc says "this is further description, beyond the basic" and describedby says "this is a basic description". How the user agents and AT deal with that meaningful information is another issue, but we maintain it is important semantic information that needs to be exposed.

The only way this can happen is if the role referred to above is specifically something which indicates "extended description".
describedat would do that; a different role as yet unspecified would do that. But a generic role would not do anything of the sort.

> - the implementation complexity seems to be really guess work. I made 
> some changes there to make it a bit more fair

we only touched the 2nd table. PF is full of browser implementers, and Dpub accessibility has none, so we thought they were better able than we are to populate that table. :-)

Deborah

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 17:34:26 UTC