Re: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

Rich Schwerdtfeger
CTO Accessibility Software Group

Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote on 05/05/2011 12:09:33
PM:

> From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Charles
> McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-
> iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
> <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>,
> Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Steve Faulkner
> <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
> Date: 05/05/2011 12:10 PM
> Subject: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus
>
> Hello Ben, Leif, Geoff, Rich, Chaals, Steve, and Everyone,
>
> Thanks to everyone who has participated in the "Moving longdesc
> forward" thread [1].
>
> For reference the latest longdesc drafts that we have been working on
> are 10.6.1 User Agent rendering and  4.8.1 The img element.
>
> 10.6.1 USER AGENT RENDERING (informative)
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering.html
>
> I have updated the 10.6.1 User Agent rendering draft trying to
> incorporate Chaals suggestion to add info on real world
> implementations and Leif's suggestion to add info on iCab's
> contextual-menu cursor. Is it okay?
>
> Rich, as Ben pointed out the 10.6.1 rendering section of the spec is
> informative not normative. But the text in 4.8.1 is normative. 4.8.1
> reads: "User agents should allow users to access long text
> alternatives." Can you live with that?
>
I could although I do think it has mainstream benefits. Should we push for
this to be a MUST and accept a SHOULD if it is not acceptable to browser
manufacturers?
My concern is that if we make it a SHOULD we remove the argument that there
are mainstream benefits from longdesc.

> Rich, I had added text for when the long description dialog is closed
> per your suggestion in 10.6.1. It read:
> <p class="expectation" id="returnpoint"><ins>When a long description
> dialog is closed a user agent is expected to return the user's point
> of regard to the element within the document where the user left
> off.</ins></p>
> Then I read Ben's reply to you:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0058.html
> Rich, If you want something added like this do you think you can work
> with Ben to take his comments into consideration and suggest text that
>  you think we all can live with? We would probably need an example to
> fit with the rest of the page too. Thanks.
>
I am at a WAI-PF Face to Face meeting at Apple working to get ARIA through
CR. I see Ben is on the CC list. It is important that we do not disorient
the user by leaving them at a location that is inconsistent with where they
left off. WCAG 2 has similar requirements for authors So, integrating Ben's
comments:

<p class="expectation" id="returnpoint"><ins>When a long description dialog
is closed a user agent must return the user's point of regard to the
element within the document where the user left off by following the <a
href="http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/history.html#traverse-the-history
">history traversal algorithm</a>.</ins></p>

Ben, does this work for you?

>
> 4.8.1 THE IMG ELEMENT (normative)
>
> The main discussion on the 4.8.1 draft in the "Moving longdesc
> forward" thread seems to be about using longdesc to point to other
> formats besides HTML. I am wondering two things:
>
> Number one:
>
> * If we file a bug as Ben proposed on 4.12 Links [2] like...
>
> "Note: User agents may not be able to open resources of a different
> format to the current document, or may have to resort to a plugin, so
> linking to resources in the same format are to be preferred. Links to
> resources in other formats are best described as such."
>
> * Is there anyone who can not live with the text at:
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-spec-text2.html
>
> Number two:
>
> If there are other aspects of improving longdesc, can they/should they
> wait until after longdesc is reinstated into HTML and be pursued as
> bugs?
>
>
> CHANGE PROPOSAL
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>
> No one has offered concrete suggestions to improve the change proposal
> in the "Moving longdesc forward" thread. Does anyone have any?
>
> I am particularly wondering about the Change Proposal's Implementation
> section [3]. I think we have good evidence in that section but  how
> can it be presented to make a more compelling case? For instance,
> would it be good to add a link to the User Agent longdesc rendering
> info [4] or not? It is all ready linked in the details section. So I
> am not sure.  Maybe reorganizing it would help. I don't know. Anyway,
> does anyone have concrete suggestions to improve that section?
>
> Steve, some time ago I think you mentioned that the proposal was too
> long. We could eliminate the reference section and link to that
> material on the longdesc research page. That might help. What do you
> think? Do you or  anyone have concrete suggestions to make the
> proposal better?
>
> Thanks everyone.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/
> thread.html#msg32
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/links.html#links
> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/
> InstateLongdesc#Implementation
> [4] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering.html
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson