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

Re: How to obsolete @longdesc

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:44:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpve2NMoHfZvU1_J=VxyZhZUd6yTUvznLqM8Ev7BsMD_5nQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Hi Leif,

>From all of the prior longdesc discussions, you are probably aware
that I believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with longdesc.
And it is improved in the new spec text. So in that respect, it is
likely that I could not/will not live with:

*  "obsolete" or "obsolete but conforming". (No throwing longdesc
under the bus for ARIA or another feature.)
* A forced visual encumbrance on sighted users of an on-page indicator
or the description itself. (Receiving a description should be a user
opt-in choice.)

It is likely that the consequence of those would result in a formal objection.

The question I posed to the browser vendors was for a FUTURE attribute
based on longdesc. I suspect the way things work around here, is if
that was agreeable to them and it was *expedited* now in this working
group, it would take ten to twenty years. (Don't hold your breath
you'll suffocate.)

We need longdesc in the spec now.

Best Regards,
Laura L. Carlson

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Sam Ruby, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:40:23 -0400:
>> On 09/19/2012 11:32 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>> Hi Leif,
>>> Obsoleting longdesc in any way is not under consideration.
>> That is not a factual statement.  It may not be something that you
>> personally would be willing to consider.  It may not be something
>> that actually happens.  But it is a factual statement that some
>> people are not only considering that, but actively proposing to
>> obsolete longdesc.
> What I would like say is that I think David is right when he suggested
> that it should not be a an ARIA feature but a HTML feature. I would be
> more comfortable with such a solution. When we start to mix in ARIA -
> such as in the debates about 'hidden but revealable on such and such
> conditions', then the waters become unclear. Plus that the argument
> could be made that ARIA would be getting that feature, anyhow, at some
> point. And so, it has the smack of appear to be getting something but
> not getting anything anyhow.
> Leif H Silli
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Laura
>> - Sam Ruby
>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Leif Halvard Silli
>>> <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
>>>> Laura Carlson, Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:19:53 -0500:
>>>>> Hi Leif,
>>>>>> Thank you for pointing to David's message. Clearly, name change might
>>>>>> be a better idea than we have admitted.
>>>>>> In that case, a logical 'deal' to consider
>>>>> No 'deal' is in consideration. This is an inquiry only.
>>>> Sorry, I don't want to disturb the inquiry so I change the topic so you
>>>> don't feel you need to stand for my words.
>>>> The argument has been mad, in this recent discussion, that HTML5 has no
>>>> means for deprecation of features. In the first longdesc poll, there
>>>> were no alternatives to replace it with and thus, true deprecation was
>>>> not possible. But if an alternative emerged, then HTML5 has some
>>>> mechanisms for making features obsolete but conforming, as pointed out
>>>> with in my message with the unlucky word 'deal'.[1]
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/20120919165642623450.594a22b3@xn--mlform-iua.no
>>>> Leif Halvard Silli

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 19:44:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:31 UTC