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

Re: Call for consensus on longdesc change proposal

From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 06:25:49 +0200
To: cyns@microsoft.com
Cc: gez.lemon@gmail.com, silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com, dboudreau@webconforme.com, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, jbrewer@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <5160242306.990167149@xn--mlform-iua.no>
We don't know if it is identical to longdesc until it is specced.

Meanwhile, can you live with taking longdesc into Aria? Then we could use 
it in SVG ...


------- Original message -------
> From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
> To: gez.lemon@gmail.com, silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
> Cc: dboudreau@webconforme.com, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, 
> jbrewer@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Sent: 18/5/'11,  1:44
> We've talked about adding an aria attribute called aria-describedat that 
> would take a URL, and work like longdesc.  There is no objection to this 
> in the ARIA TF.  It also has the advantage of being available in other 
> markup languages (like SVG).  Could people live with this instead?  It 
> seems like a path that allows us to spend our time on solutions rather 
> than procedure.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gez Lemon [mailto:gez.lemon@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 4:16 PM
> To: Silvia Pfeiffer
> Cc: Denis Boudreau; Laura Carlson; Cynthia Shelly; Judy Brewer; 
> public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Call for consensus on longdesc change proposal
> Hi silvia,
>> 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.
> This isn't so much about WAI-ARIA failing. I completely support WAI_ARIA, 
> and think it's a brilliant specification. The fact is there is no 
> equivalent of longdesc in WAI-ARIA to provide a long description. The 
> longdesc attribute links to a semantically rich reference, so users can 
> control how they interact with the content.
> The closest thing in WAI-ARIA to longdesc is the aria-describedby 
> attribute, which is mapped to an accessibility API as a string of text.
> So for a graph, the user could have a data table they could investigate 
> column-by-column, row-by-row (and they can pause at any stage, and 
> re-investigate where they are in the content), rather than a stream of 
> text that they have no way of controlling how it is delivered to them.
> Regards,
> Gez
> --
> _____________________________
> Please help support research into Alzheimer's disease 
> http://www.justgiving.com/GezLemon
> Supplement your vitamins
> http://juicystudio.com
> http://twitter.com/gezlemon
Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 23:53:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:20 UTC