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

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:22:43 -0700
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-id: <C745C15A-F99C-4E31-86FA-873B7481D37C@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>

Hi John,

On Sep 18, 2012, at 3:19 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> 
>> But I do note that it seems to be back in the mode of
>> "mandate something that browsers won't implement".
> 
> 
> I will note that currently, we have at least 3 instances of native
> implementation by browsers (Opera, iCab, IBM HomePageReader [no longer
> produced or maintained by IBM]), that Firefox *does* expose @longdesc to the
> Accessibility API, and that at least 3 market-significant screen reading
> technologies (JAWs, WindowEyes and SuperNova/Hal) also provide support
> *across* different browser offerings.

When you said this in an earlier email:

"t comes down to 2 paths forward as I see it: one is that we mandate
something that browsers will continue ignore, or we actively engage them in
crafting the solution, one that meets all of the user requirements."

I assumed you were dissatisfied with the current level of browser support, and that you wanted to see more widespread support for longdesc than that. If you are satisfied with having longdesc support in Opera, iCab, IBM HomePageReader and some screen readers, then of course you do not need to persuade anyone else to implement, or for that matter engage anyone in crafting the solution. I am confused though, by the contrast between your two statements.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 02:23:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 September 2012 02:23:13 GMT