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

Re: regrets

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:13:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvekp4wHS+M37vbXn4j+Dra2UL6P8fJAYiVZpLw1tfi_Xw@mail.gmail.com>
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi David,

I don't think that there is a meeting. I didn't see an agenda. John
and I are currently the only ones on IRC in the text channel.

Best Regards,
Laura

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 17:14:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 July 2012 17:14:21 GMT