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 06:19:44 +0200
To: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
Cc: dboudreau@webconforme.com, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, cyns@microsoft.com, jbrewer@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, gez.lemon@gmail.com
Message-ID: <3077099106.990166784@xn--mlform-iua.no>
You and Cynthia in my view make too much out of it. Take a look at use case 
10 in the CP. It suggests to use longdesc in combination with @role.
Thus no one is against Aria.

Leif


------- Original message -------
> From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
> To: dboudreau@webconforme.com
> Cc: laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, cyns@microsoft.com, jbrewer@w3.org, 
> public-html-a11y@w3.org, gez.lemon@gmail.com
> Sent: 18/5/'11,  0:59
>
> 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 Wednesday, 18 May 2011 23:53:07 GMT

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