W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2013

long descriptions on replacement elements

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:41:18 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=rYQ4yrWC5Na8RrXoNWtm=Tdm7_J2f4afgO0RY1DWTHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Cc: "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
[was Re: CfC: to publish "HTML5 Image Description Extension" specification
as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)]

I think we agree in principle about where we want to see the future of long
descriptions. So, instead of arguing any further about the present, I'd
like to encourage progressing the replacement attribute.

I remember the proposal of aria-describedat :
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/aria-unofficial/raw-file/tip/describedat.html

What's the current status of that?

Regards,
Silvia.

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <
chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> **
> Some of this is relevant to the TF, since it is technical discussion where
> we may want to express an opinion. Since I don't think we should try to
> merge the longdesc spec directly into some HTML spec yet, I don't think
> there is any action required, but below I explain why in more detail. Of
> course it is possible that people disagree with me, and these are only my
> personal opinions...
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:04:49 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The below are my personal opinions.
>
> I assume the implication of accepting this CFC is that "longdesc on img
> elements" will be removed from the section that states that it is
> non-conforming [1].
>
>
> I'm not sure, since it is not currently proposed for inclusion in an HTML
> spec. But since the validator would allow longdesc, that seems to be an
> outcome that is consistent...
>
> I'm supportive of this CFC under the following conditions:
>
> 1. I'd like to make sure that "longdesc on iframe elements" remains
> non-conforming.
>
>
> As editor of this spec, I don't have any desire to extend it to frames (or
> anything else). But since it comes from a TF and I take the role of editor
> to mean that, rather than "author entitled to decide everything or stop
> playing", I can't make a guarantee. Withing the task force I ahve certainly
> argued not to extend this spec any further.
>
> 2. I'd also like to make sure we come up with a more generic means of
> linking to external long descriptions for any replaced element, not just
> images.
>
>
> Me too. As far as I am concerned today (and for the 7-year life of Issue
> 30), longdsc ain't it.
>
> In the long term I'd like to see such a feature and I'd like to see that
> feature replace @longdesc on images, too.
>
>
> I have no objection to that either. But one reason I support this is that
> the promised replacements haven't appeared yet.
>
>  I'm therefore suggesting that for HTML5.1 @longdesc on img is added to
> the list of obsolete but conforming features [2] with a statement that it
> is there for legacy reasons and will be replaced by a new aria-* attribute.
>
>
> I'll leave this question to when it is less hypothetical, but I am
> unlikely to simply reject the idea outright.
>
> I'm saying aria-* because if it is an accessibility-only attribute, it
> should be in the aria namespace. Proponents that argue that it's not just
> for accessibility should use <a> instead.
>
>
> Except that doesn't meet some of the use cases. But that's a detailed
> technically-based bikeshed that I think is best painted by whoever actually
> produces the proposed attribute (or other mechanism).
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 00:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:33 UTC