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

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 02:08:46 +0100
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120225020846745446.9d97a505@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Janina Sajka, Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:34:20 -0500:
> Leif Halvard Silli writes:

> This document applies to everything.

I agree that the Alt Techniques document could be applied outside HTML5.

> The human side of the guidance it
> provides does not differ. Only the lexical markup differs. It's not
> practical to try and have documents for each technology, as the
> explanations would be the same, and would constitute most of the text.
> The lexical part is by far the smallest part.

I don't think it quite makes sense to measure what is the longest — the 
syntax or the explanation of how to use it: If we remove the syntax, 
then I believe the Alt Technique text becomes nearly meaningless. In 
fact, below, you explain the usefulness of code examples.

> Furthermore, it's helpful
> to both authors and developers to have lexical examples for multiple
> languages together in the same place when the author/developer is
> already familiar with one ml, the parallel usage, presented in parallel,
> will only aid comprehension.

May be. But if I don't know the other languages, then it is just a 
distractions. I don't need to read about ODF — or Word — if my focus on 
HTML. Also, The task of this working group is only HTML. Further more, 
I think that the more we describe how to make 'the lexical examples' 
HTML, then the more it can be repurposed, in other specs for other 
formats. I would give the spec authors the task of seeing how the same 
principles applies to many formats - rather than give it to the spec 
readers.

> Please consider the job from the human perspective to get a better sense
> of this.

By 'from the human perspective' you mean 'spec writers'? At any rate, I 
could certainly see a value, for some, of a document that took a 
document agnostic perspective. But for most readers, whether it is 
general or special, may have a lot to say about how they understand the 
text - and how authoritative they consider it to be.

I keep coming back to ARIA 1.0: It is general enough. Still HTML5 
defines how to use it. In theory, HTML5 did not have to define a single 
thing — it could just have said: 'please read ARIA - everything ARIA 
says is permitted, you may do in HTML5'. Instead HTMl5 has defined how 
to use ARIA in HTML5 - and that is also in line with ARIA itself to do 
so.

I don't understand this group should not be the right place for taking 
a similar approach to WCAG: Define what it means inside HTMl5.
-- 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2012 01:09:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:53 GMT