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

Re: Call for Consensus on resolutions to Objections to Publish an FPWD for long textual descriptions on images - due Friday 20th December, 23:59 EST

From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:31:22 -0800
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <D02C0AAF-59F9-41E8-A604-273CD5083A21@apple.com>
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
> Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses by [Friday 20th December, 23:59 EST] are preferred:

Noted.

> 3.  James Craig and Matt Turvey both stated that an image description should be available to all users. Nobody disagreed, and several people agreed. A bug was raised[3] to track this. The proposed specification already requires user agents to enable users, as well as assistive technologies, to access the functionality. The Opera, iCab and Firefox implementations all do this. The NVDA implementation was held back with the explicitly stated hope that the functionality would be made available to all users through the browser.
> 
> a.  Proposed Resolution – Resolved Fixed: The recent update to the specification addresses this by more clearly stating that the requirements apply to all users, not just assistive technology.
> 
> b.   If this is still unclear in the specification, please provide specific editorial suggestions to improve it.

I think this is a mis-representation of our intent. The point was that any long description content should be provided in a feature other than @longdesc.

> 7.  Matt Turvey, James Craig, and Silvia Pfeiffer suggested the specification could be changed to state that longdesc is obsolete.
> 
> a.  Proposed Resolution- Resolved Won’t Fix: In a specification of a single feature, this makes no sense. The question might be relevant to the HTML Working Group if it wants to consider incorporating this extension directly into the HTML specification.

Clarifying: we requested "obsolete but conforming" not just "obsolete"… Also, my recollection is that a lot more people suggested this, including two of the task force chairs, when they removed their metaphorical chair hats.

James
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 00:31:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 14 December 2012 00:31:52 GMT