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

Re: Call for consensus on longdesc change proposal

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 08:59:12 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTim+6aUNjzzpzqQdRRPLDNHp_M67_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
Cc: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Denis Boudreau
<dboudreau@webconforme.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 2011-05-17, at 4:57 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>> As for the last question, in addition to what Cliff said, I experience
>> that myself with developers. It is sad but true.
>
> Same experience here. <del>Developers</del><ins>people</ins> are lazy.
>
> Sad and frustrating, but the truth, nonetheless.

What makes you think that would be better with the @longdesc
attribute? I am concerned that if the argument is "we need longdesc
because aria attributes are not in use" the logical next reaction is -
let's remove aria attributes then.

I'm a developer and I really don't care what the attribute is called
as long as it is clear what its purpose is. But I don't see a logical
conclusion from "aria attributes have failed" to "let's introduce some
other attributes that nobody is using yet to take their place".

I agree with Cynthia that that is a very weak argument and likely will
just result in a very bad discussion for a11y. Laziness is an argument
against a11y, not an argument for @longdesc.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 22:59:59 GMT

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