W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2011

RE: Response to: ChangeProposals/DeprecateLongdesc

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:24:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Silvia Pfeiffer'" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <070601cc6332$a166df50$e4349df0$@edu>
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> Note that I was referring to this bit out of the WAI CG Consensus
> Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document:
> "Long text alternatives (e.g. aria-describedby )..."
> That's what made me think that aria-describedby is intended to be the
> catch-all long description attribute.

Perfectly understandable.

> Also, the "AccessibleDescription" mapping of aria-describedby is just
> the way in which Microsoft have mapped it to their accessibility API.

In the response to Jonas, I outlined the various AAPI mappings (as
supplied by Rich Schwerdtfeger), and they all do essentially the same
thing (reduce to string text when not visible). At some point, somebody
needs to blink, and expecting 4 or 5 different AAPI's to be re-written so
that HTML5 can deprecate @longdesc is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
(Especially when these APIs, as system level APIs, affect/are affected by
all applications, not just browsers)

> That this has removed all means of retaining mark-up is a consequence
> of their mapping, not a requirement of the standard specification. We
> have to power to tell them that it's a mis-representation of the
> specification and that they should be thinking of a better solution.

I disagree, see above. Also, have you fully considered what having
tabable/focusable content off-screen or hidden would do? Keyboard-only
users would start tabbing only to lose their visible focus as they were
tabbing through the hidden content, surely this can't be a good thing?

> It can't be held against the attribute that an implementation has
> interpreted the specification more tightly than interpreted. It just
> means that the specification needs to be made more explicit and the
> implementations adjusted.

Again, this seems like a lot of additional work just to acquiesce to a
few's mistaken drive to obsolete @longdesc. To turn your last comment on
its edge:

It can't be held against the attribute (@longdesc) that most GUI browsers
have failed to bring forth an implementation that was useful for all (and
not just the non-sighted). It just means that the specification needs to
be made more explicit (@longdesc must be discoverable to all, and able to
be acted upon by all) and the implementations (browsers) adjusted.

Right? <grin>


Received on Thursday, 25 August 2011 14:25:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:23 UTC