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

Re: Issue 30 - longdesc

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 20:40:04 -0500
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Paul Cotton'" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Smith, Michael(tm)'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110108014004.GB2441@sonata.rednote.net>
I don't understand why you are forwarding this to the Wg Chairs, etc. I
thought we agreed we could take this up as an TF agendum, at your
request.

Also, I don't see an actual agenda topic here. Is it Whether to ask for
clarification on certain terms?



I'm afraid I'm confused by what you're doing here.

Janina

John Foliot writes:
> Per our conference call of January 6th, 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
> 
>  
> 
> ============================
> 
>  
> 

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 01:40:53 UTC

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