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

Re: Moving longdesc forward

From: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:46:56 -0400
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
CC: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9E6D110.5F39%geoff_freed@wgbh.org>

On 5/4/11 9:22 AM, "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:

Leif Halvard Silli, Wed, 4 May 2011 14:45:08 +0200:
> Geoff Freed, Wed, 4 May 2011 08:28:23 -0400:
>
>>> May be, w.r.t. 'structured host language', we could learn from the @src
>>> definition and say that longdesc resources should be located inside
>>> 'HTML and XML files with <html> as root element'.
>>
>> ===
>> GF:
>> I'd be hesitant to put this restriction place because in some cases
>> it imposes an extra step on the user.  For example, if I want to use
>> a plain-text document, or an accessible PDF, to deliver my longdesc,
>> are you saying that I must first lead users to a structured document
>> from which they select a link that *then* leads to the
>> plain-text/PDF longdesc?
>
> Would you agree with me if we made it a SHOULD?
>
> To answer your question: Yes you would. OR you could paste the content
> into HTML file and serve it as longdesc document. Or the longdesc
> document could include a link to the PDF file, with an explanation
> saying "See this link to PDF document with description, but note that
> only first 3 pages are relevant."
>
> Can we make it a MUST still?

HTML5 says that unless content is served as UTF-8, then links etc can
not expected to always work.

So, one way around the porridge (Norwegian expression) could be place a
warning in the spec saying that users are likely to experience problems
unless the longdesc resource is a html document or a xml document with
html as root element.

Better?

===
GF:
I'm not crazy about MUST, and I'm also not crazy about making users select two links in order to receive certain types of long descriptions as it introduces a (or another) chance for users to get lost.  However, I also would prefer that long descriptions be structured (for all the obvious reasons) so I can be happy with SHOULD.

Geoff/NCAM

Leif H Silli
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 13:48:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:38 GMT