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

Re: longdesc quality statistics

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 04:44:50 +0200
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, 'David Singer' <singer@apple.com>, 'Charles McCathie Nevile' <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120923044450932767.98f24565@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Sam Ruby, Sat, 22 Sep 2012 21:47:38 -0400:
> On 09/22/2012 09:13 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>> Sam Ruby, Sat, 22 Sep 2012 20:21:09 -0400:
>>> On 09/22/2012 05:36 PM, John Foliot wrote:
>>>> David Singer wrote:
>>>>> But.
>>>>> a) why would anyone now implement longdesc knowing that the
>>>>> descriptions that they'd expose to users were, for the vast majority,
>>>>> 'hopelesslt bad'?
>>>> 1) There is no other functional replacement in effect today.
>>> The keyword being 'today'.
>>> I'll point out that there is a false dichotomy in play here.
>>> Today there is only one mainstream browser that natively implements
>>> longdesc.
>> What do you mean by saying that only one 'natively implements'?
> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld-rendering2.html


>> For mainstream browsers, the situation is:
>> 1. Firefox has support in its A11Y API
>> 2. Opera has contextual menu support.
>> 3. Internet Explorer has A11Y API support (but
>>     I have heard that it is buggy).
> Any possibility that the proposal can be updated to NOT define the 
> user agents in 1 and 3 above as not meeting expectations?

That sounds like a good description of today: today offering a A11Y API 
implementations is one way @longdesc is implemented. Those who 
implement it that way, should 'get credit' for that. By updating the 
proposal about that and making it conforming, we would turn it more 
into a 'today' spec ... I also remember that Steve mentioned that 
Firefox addons apparently do not make use of Firefox's A11Y API for it 
- they could perhaps have done that. If the proposal was more 'today', 
then it could perhaps help addon authors writing more 'today' addons 

I like the idea. Of describing today. I definitely think the A11Y TF 
should make a 'today' spec and would like to contribute to such a thing.

This is today:

* what it is 
  - attribute for img and iframe
  - takes URL as value
  - points to long description resource
  - effectively a (discrete) link implemented in chrome, A11Y APIs,
    in AT and in scripts
* basis for today's implementations:
  - HTML4
  - DOM 1.0
  - WCAG talks about it
  - "reality"
* implementations:
  - browsers (A11Y APIs, contextual menus, add-ons)
  - ATs
  - authoring tools
* how it is accessed
  - in browsers
  - in AT/screenreaders
  - in authoring tools
* usage
  - how to author with it
  - JS libraries that uses it
  - where it is used
  - etc
* problems
  - frequently found in use for non-A11Y purposes
  - bogus JS implementations (misuses)

A good deal of this in the proposal too. 
leif halvard silli
Received on Sunday, 23 September 2012 02:45:22 UTC

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