W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Process objections to FPWD

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:35:12 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mzCyi_YNhvUqQPa+gcLUUwCU9budo1GiPWd5kxRywPPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
I agree with this suggestion of making @longdesc "obsolete but conforming".
I would pair it with a proposal of a new attribute that provides links to
longer content descriptions for more than just the <img> element.

In addition, I would like to see a rationale document for the @longdesc
extension spec that addresses the often-heard objections in a succinct
manner. In particular I'd like to see an explanation of how the different
browsers different in their implementation and interpretation of the value
of the @longdesc attribute (some versions of IE mapping it to a description
rather than a link) and how AT deal and fix this situation. I believe this
is crucial for people to understand - on top of the author misuse of
@longdesc, which is far less harmful.

This rationale document can be just in the wiki, since it's additional
information for the decision making rather than part of the actual
specification.

HTH.

Regards,
Silvia.


On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:38 AM, Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com> wrote:

> Another potential compromise solution for consensus would be to spec
> longdesc as "obsolete but conforming", i.e. effectively "deprecated".

This option has previously received some support in the TF and HTMLWG:
>
> In the HTML-A11Y-TF's original poll:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/0180.html
>
> Richard and Judy:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/04/18-text-minutes.html
>
> Janina:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0014.html
>
> Steve:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2012Mar/0031.html
>
> Cynthia
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0289.html
>
> James:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0151.html
>
> Me:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0254.html
>
> Since the HTML5 spec already requires UAs to expose longdesc [1] this
> option would just result in validators issuing a warning instead of an
> error. I think this approach would provide better advice to authors
> and is more likely to gain consensus in the HTMLWG.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/single-page.html#dom-img-longdesc
>
> -Matt
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 December 2012 05:36:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 December 2012 05:36:02 GMT