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

RE: Call for Consensus (CFC) to move forward the HTML5 Image Description Extension spec for publication (FPWD)

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:33:28 -0500
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP936F75E9865882D6308B92FE540@phx.gbl>
To: "'Charles McCathie Nevile'" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'Geoff Freed'" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
CC: "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
>>>I suggest that WCAG techniques is incorrect here, by being incomplete.

 

I suggest it’s a huge rat hole going against WCAG advice, for a whole bunch of reasons ... there was lots of time from 2002-2008 to do that, most of this group were frequent contributors and commenters... But go on to FPWD... we can take a sober look at the issue on the other side of the FPWD. 

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

 <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com

 

From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: November-20-12 8:54 PM
To: 'Geoff Freed'; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'; David MacDonald
Cc: 'Steve Faulkner'
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus (CFC) to move forward the HTML5 Image Description Extension spec for publication (FPWD)

 

With my chair hat off...

 

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:13:56 +0100, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

 

I’m confused as to why there would be a longdesc on an example of a decorative image...WCAG failure F39 says:

 

“This technique describes a failure condition for images that should be ignored by assistive technologies. A text alternative for an image should convey the meaning of the image. When an image is used for decoration, spacing or other purpose that is not part of the meaningful content in the page then **the image has no meaning and should be ignored by assistive technologies.**”

 

I suggest that WCAG techniques is incorrect here, by being incomplete. The image doesn't have any special meaning that is otherwise missing from the page, and can be ignored by assistive technologies *in the ordinary reading of the page*.

 

The counter-argument would essentially say that it is wrong to have descriptions available for images which are not semantically significant to the page. I don't think that argument is sustainable.

 

"Semantically meaningful" is really a continuum, not a boolean condition. What e.g. screenreaders do is basically an approximation, effectively deciding what the most useful trade-off is. Longdesc is explicitly designed for situations where that would normally mean not providing the description, but making it available for the case when a user wants to go to the extra trouble of reading it. It is a basic assumption that this would not be the most common case.





http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F39

 

cheers

 

Chaals

 

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> 

 

From: Geoff Freed [mailto:geoff_freed@wgbh.org] 
Sent: November-20-12 11:54 AM
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Cc: Steve Faulkner
Subject: Re: Call for Consensus (CFC) to move forward the HTML5 Image Description Extension spec for publication (FPWD)

 

 

No objections here; I think it's ready to go to the next stage.

 

Geoff Freed

WGBH/NCAM

 

On Nov 20, 2012, at 7:15 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Hi all,

 

We are calling for consensus on the HTML5 Image Description Extension specification [1]

 

We have asked for and received feedback on the specification from task force members.

 

The question we are asking task force members:

 

Is this specification ready to be put forward by the Task force to the HTML WG and the Protocols and Formats WG for consideration for publication as a first public working draft (FPWD)?

 

Please note: As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have consensus on the contents.

 

Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive responses are encouraged. 

If there are no objections by Thursday, November 29th (Close of business, or 23:59 Boston Time), this resolution will carry. 

 

Other considerations to note: 

 

- As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger patent policy review. 

 




[1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/4893614e89f2/longdesc1/longdesc.html

 

 

On behalf of the task force chairs:

 

Janina, Steve and Chaals

 



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

 





-- 

Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02:34:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC