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

Re: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 19:13:32 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=O57x6TgyRNshfs2O3C0cRMLLGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Hello everyone,

Thanks to all for your input.

John wrote:
> The overall length of that document is I think a concern [Plus a lot of concrete suggestions to make the doc which I am very, very grateful for].

We certainly can shorten it, John. But we should be careful not to
lose the critical information that was vital to reopen the issue and
will be critical in the adjudicating a new decision.

Leif wrote:
> Before discussing a new text, would it not be interesting to see if
> Laura could shorten her text via the suggested means - namely by
> moving stuff to sub pages ?

This is could be a good way to make it shorter and without losing
details. For instance I am open to taking some sections of the
proposal and making sub-pages like the following:

*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Hidden
MetadataFallacy
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/SomethingforEveryoneNotEverythingForAnyone
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent
ResearchOnlineTutorialsDocumentation
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent
ResearchGuidelinesLawsPolicyStandards
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Recent
ResearchUsers
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/SuggestedAlternativesAreNotViable
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/Related
SolutionsDoNotNegateNeed
*http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/References

Then we would link to those. The use case section is core to  the
argument to reinstate, so it probably not be a good idea remove that.

Sam wrote:
> It is my hopes that this input is received in the spirit it is
> intended, namely "it is much better to hear about this now than when
> it is too late to make corrections".

Your input is very welcome and much appreciated, Sam. From your
perspective is the length of the InstateLongdesc change proposal [1] a
problem? Besides retaining the use case section and strengthening  the
evidence do you have any other suggestions?  From your perspective are
the "Suggested Alternatives Are Not Viable Solutions" and
"Implementation" sections critical to retain in the main document. Or
could they be linked to in sub-documents?

Thanks.

Best regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 00:13:59 GMT

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