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

Re: Issue 30 - longdesc

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:20:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4D264E26.1040308@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'Paul Cotton' <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, "'Smith, Michael\(tm\)'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Philippe Le Hegaret' <plh@w3.org>
I don't understand the purpose of these clarification requests.

We stated that the issue can be reopened if one or more of these 
conditions are met.  I have already said that I believe that the 
conditions have been met.  What more clarification do you need?  "What 
will make a compelling case?"  The only possible answer to that is "a 
case that is stronger than the objections that may be raised in response 
to the proposal".

I do *not* recommend that you spend conference call time requesting 

- Sam Ruby

On 01/06/2011 05:48 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> Per our conference call of January 6^th , I have been asked to write to
> write this up.
> In the Chair’s Decision document regarding @longdesc, they stated:
>       “Revisiting this Issue
> This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of
> possible relevant new information include:
>     * use cases that specifically require longdesc,
>     * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that
>       growth is expected to continue, or
>     * widespread interoperable implementation.”
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
> It is apparent that both PF and numerous members of this Task Force wish
> to see the @longdesc decision revisited. I personally have asked on
> numerous occasions for clarification on these points, and specifically
> the metrics and measurements that will apply when reconsideration is
> undertaken by the Chairs. My questions are:
> 1)“use cases that specifically require longdesc” – how many use cases
> are required? 1 or more? 5 or more? 20 or more? Laura Carlson has been
> documenting numerous cases where @longdesc is being used today – do
> these in-the-wild examples constitute use cases in the broader sense (in
> that the author(s) have chosen to use @longdesc as they believe it to be
> appropriate?)
> Clarification on how many use-cases will make a compelling case to the
> chairs is again requested.
> 2)“evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that growth
> is expected to continue” – how is “rapidly” defined here? What is
> considered “growth”? Increase of usage by authors? Emergence of author
> support in authoring tools? Emergence of rendering support – such as
> plug-ins or native support in CMSes? How will the ‘expectation’ of
> continued growth be assessed?
> Clarification on how both “rapid” and “growth” are to be measured is
> again requested, so that we can be sure to meet (or document) these
> tests of measurement.
> 3)“widespread interoperable implementation” – How is “widespread”
> measured? Interoperable implementations where? Since @longdesc is
> written to the DOM in all browsers today as a DOM node, it surely is
> widespread (?). Since users of AT that support @longdesc (the majority
> of screen readers today) can thus use their AT tools with the browser of
> their choice to ‘extract’ and interact with the @longdesc value already,
> does this meet the criteria for “widespread interoperable
> implementation”? If not, why not? And what, instead, do the Chairs
> expect to see to meet this criteria?
> Clarification of what “widespread interoperable implementation” means to
> the Chairs is again requested.
> (I might suggest that if, as is the case with most W3C requirements, the
> number is 2 independent implementations, then we have already met that
> requirement, as more than two screen readers today expose @longdesc to
> their users, and those AT tools can be used with at least two commercial
> browsers in the marketplace. Do the Chairs concur or disagree?)
> At this time, I would like to request that the Accessibility Task Force
> look at these questions.
> ·Do we collectively understand the requirements as given to us by the
> Chairs?
> ·Do we believe collectively that more clarification and measurement
> metrics are required so that we can succeed in meeting the Chairs
> requirements?
> It has been noted already that we will likely only get one more “kick at
> the can” here, thus ensuring we have met all the requirements requested
> of us fully is an important goal to meet: it would be unconscionable to
> miss out again due to vaguely defined requirements not being met fully.
> If collectively we believe – as I currently do – that accurate
> definitions are required, then I would like to ask the Task Force to
> formally & collectively make a Request for Clarification to the Chairs.
> If none is forth-coming then, as Janina noted on the call, we can
> document this fact as part of any TF/PF Formal Objection down the road.
> If however the Chairs do respond, then we will know **specifically**
> what is required to Revisit this Issue, and we can work to ensure we
> meet those requirements.
> I would like to request that we add this to next week’s Call Agenda for
> further discussion (unless we resolve this via the list).
> Cheers!
> JF
> ============================
> John Foliot
> Program Manager
> Stanford Online Accessibility Program
> http://soap.stanford.edu
> Stanford University
> Tel: 650-862-4603
> ---
> Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page
> ============================
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:21:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:17 UTC