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

Re: longdesc verbiage

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 07:30:39 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=O2D5W=FiyTdMaiADOx=pq5maZ3w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Silvia,

> Are you expecting spec text to be taken over word-by-word from
> what this group will be proposing?

The per the HTMLWG decision policy the details section of the change
proposal needs to be :

1. A set of edit instructions, specific enough that they can be
applied without ambiguity.
2.  Spec text for a draft to be published separate from HTML5 (though
such a draft can be proposed at any time without a Change Proposal).
3.  Exact spec text for the sections to be changed, and a baseline
revision for the version of the spec being changed.
4. With prior permission from the chairs, a high-level prose
description of the changes to be made.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#change-proposal

So getting task force consensus on 1 or 3 would probably be good.

>> Do you think that the images should
>> be removed from the rendering section? [2] We certainly can pull them
>> out if they are not helpful.
>
> They are good for making a case, but I doubt they are good in the
> spec.

Ben had suggested that we add images. Steve's example text had images
too. But if people think we should pull them out of the rendering
section [1] , it is okay with me. Ben and Steve, and everyone what do
you think? I the rendering section better with or without images?

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering.html

On 5/9/11, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Laura,
>
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Silvia, Ben, Chaals, Rich, John, and Everyone,
>>
>> Silvia, thank you very much for thinking outside of the box and
>> proposing longdesc spec text. Your text for the img section goes quite
>> a bit further than talking about adding the image to the longdesc
>> page. It doesn't seem that we have agreement on expanding the
>> proposal's current spec text [1].  Do you think that the images should
>> be removed from the rendering section? [2] We certainly can pull them
>> out if they are not helpful.
>
> They are good for making a case, but I doubt they are good in the
> spec. Are you expecting spec text to be taken over word-by-word from
> what this group will be proposing?
>
> Silvia.

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 9 May 2011 12:31:06 GMT

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