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

RE: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:49:20 -0700
To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <007e01cd9526$ae930920$0bb91b60$@ca>
David Singer wrote:
> 
> So your thesis is that we should stick with a poor solution, that works
> only in controlled environments (not the public internet), and with a
> limited number of UAs, not all, and for whcih the situation is not
> improving nor likely to, rather than do better?
> 
> "I'm sorry, I cannot give you a car because you already have a broken
> bicycle."  Pshaw, I say, I and many others have much higher
> aspirations.

Then please, bring forward a better way. One that addresses all of the user
requirements that have been outlined in infinite detail
(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/UseCases).
One that is easy for content creators to implement and that provides real
solutions that *all* users can use.

This needs to be a technical solution, not a convoluted series of possible
authoring solutions. What we have today with the obsolesce of longdesc is
more like "I'm sorry, I cannot give you a car, plus we're going to take away
your broken bicycle, and you can walk or stay put - we don't have the
solution to your problem today".

Besides, it's not so much that the bike is broken, but that there are very
few good bike-paths to use.


> >
> > With due respect, that wholly depends on how you measure support and
> > reliability.
> >
> 
> A success is a success no matter how you measure it; indeed, given a
> careful measurement of limited spaces on both the UA and content side,
> yes, there are good patches.  I do not think that is not good enough.
> 

So, if "A success is a success no matter how you measure it", then by your
own criteria @longdesc has had some successes, and with some effort we can
build upon those successes.  The current proposed alternative is to ignore
those successes, start fresh with a possible something that has zero support
today, and hope and pray that it won't be overly disruptive?  I do not think
that is good enough.

Respectfully,

JF
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 22:49:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 September 2012 22:49:55 GMT