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

> Using longdesc as a mechanism for providing that information seems like a good solution. It makes it available for those that want it, without hindering those that don’t.

 

If we lobby AT vendors so screen readers stop ignoring null alt text then the image will, I suggest, “hinder” screen reader users. It will stop them on the image and say something like:

““Graphic, press ALT + Enter for long description”. That would be a very new behaviour.

 

Perhaps the important thing with the example is whether it is “pure decoration” http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#puredecdef  which under WCAG requires null alt text.  The example seems to be referring to some other kind of decoration which is meant to create an emotional response significant enough to lobby AT vendors to stop ignoring null alt text and force the screen reader user to hear something like  “Graphic, press ALT + Enter for long description”. 

 

If we are going to start doing wilful violations of an existing W3C spec, let’s not say this is an extension which is simply re-introducing existing technology, and existing use cases...

I would suggest that the Extension has a least two new ideas that have never been attached to Longdesc previously...

 

1)   There are no existing working examples of longdesc links to the same page ... no examples in HTML4, or WCAG, no discussion of it in HTML4 or WCAG, no AT support, no browser support, no existing practise or precedence (it’s one thing to propose it as new, which would be fine, it’s another to say it an existing use case of the HTML4 specification.)

 

2) The idea that there should be null alt text on an image with Longdesc is foreign to any advice I’ve ever seen, or any current practise... and no AT or browsers support it.

 

If we want to try something new with our old friend the Longdesc, I’m fine with that... but then don’t present the extension as our old friend the Longdesc...

 

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: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.co.uk] 
Sent: November-21-12 11:59 AM
To: 'Charles McCathie Nevile'; '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)

 

Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

“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.”

 

Semantic meaning is only part of the overall experience. There is a time and a place for emotion rich images too, and we shouldn’t make choices about whether screen reader users would (or wouldn’t) like to experience them [1].

 

Using longdesc as a mechanism for providing that information seems like a good solution. It makes it available for those that want it, without hindering those that don’t.

 

The only problem is that (at present) an empty alt makes the image invisible to screen readers, taking access to the longdesc with it. It’s possible the AT vendors will respond to this, but in the meantime we might want to think about how we reference this in the extension?

 

Léonie.

 

[1] http://tink.co.uk/2011/06/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/

 

 

 

 

From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: 21 November 2012 01:54
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