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

regrets

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:35:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP5488D20C66C74CD28A7EDDFEDC0@phx.gbl>
To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Regrets on ALT text meeting at 1pm, work commitment.

Cheers
David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
  "Enabling the Web"
www.Can-Adapt.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: July-24-12 7:49 AM
To: Mathew Marquis
Cc: HTML WG; Ian Jacobs; HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: Re: Proposed adaptive image element

Hi Mat,

> With the above in mind I d love to discuss the next steps in working 
> towards a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention 
> of filing a bug to have this proposal officially entered into the WG 
> system   is that our next course of action?

Filing a bug is step one in the HTML Working Group decision process.
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html

With regard to accessibility two things that may be worth consideration:

1. The possibility of responsive text alternatives that could parallel the responsive images if needed. The <picture> proposal allows for different sources for images at different sizes. But authors could use different images at different sizes and not just a cropped down version of a single image. No text alternative mechanism is provided for that use case. Allowing alt on <source> could provide for that use case. Something like the following might work:

<picture>
<source src="mobile.jpg  alt="text alternative"> <source src="medium.jpg"  alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 600px"> <source src="fullsize.jpg"  alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 900px"> <img src="mobile.jpg" alt="text alternative"> </picture>

2. A picture element could allow for semantic programmatically determinable in-page rich text long description, if a description element was added to the proposal:

<picture>
<img src="image.jpg" alt="text alternative"> <desc>structured rich text description with headings, lists, tables, etc.</desc> </picture>

Best Regards,
Laura

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
> HTML WG,
>
> I wanted to check-in with you guys briefly on the status of the RICG s 
> proposal, and update you on a few recent developments with regards to 
> the proposed `picture` element:
>
> A few vendors have expressed an interest in prototyping a native 
> implementation of the `picture` element in the near future. With so 
> much discussion surrounding this topic I m concerned that there s 
> still a great deal left open to interpretation, even with the proposal 
> codified at 
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/wiki/Picture_Element_Proposal and 
> detailed at 
> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/06/18/florians-compromise/
>
> Further: the Drupal team is currently discussing the inclusion of the 
> `picture` element in Drupal 8 core, along with the speculative 
> polyfill we developed here at Filament Group ( 
> http://drupal.org/node/1170478 ). I posted that I didn t recommend the 
> use of `picture` prior to a specification or native implementation ( 
> http://drupal.org/node/1170478#comment-6248598 ) and that they might 
> consider the related `div`-based script that replicates the native 
> behavior, for the time being. It does seem that some of the 
> decision-makers involved are still leaning towards the `picture` 
> element itself ( https://twitter.com/attiks/statuses/225636567618818048 , for example ).
>
> I worry that implementors and the developer community alike, having 
> seen a clear need and use for this element as proposed, are 
> considering implementing and using it preemptively. My fear is that 
> either party doing so before a specification has been solidified could 
> result in competing implementations, and broken production sites.
>
> With the above in mind I d love to discuss the next steps in working 
> towards a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention 
> of filing a bug to have this proposal officially entered into the WG 
> system   is that our next course of action?  Also, any information I 
> could relay back to the RICG and interested parties would be hugely appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
> Mat Marquis



--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 16:36:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 July 2012 16:36:17 GMT