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

Re: Call for Consensus on resolutions to Objections to Publish an FPWD for long textual descriptions on images - due Friday 20th December, 23:59 EST

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 09:35:07 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vkjeapq=oCQm6n+RrpX5v-pMfzxZk-vS83Le3KVdHKhbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi James apologies for the delayed response.

You wrote:

I think this is a mis-representation of our intent. The point was that any
> long description content should be provided in a feature other than
> @longdesc.
>

It was not an intentional mis-representation. I would encourage you or
anybody else to develop an extension specification providing methods to
provide long descriptions using mechanisms other than longdesc.

You wrote:

Clarifying: we requested "obsolete but conforming" not just "obsolete"…
> Also, my recollection is that a lot more people suggested this, including
> two of the task force chairs, when they removed their metaphorical chair
> hats.
>

 (chair hat off) Indeed, I have voiced support for 'obsolete but
conforming' status for longdesc and have not changed my personal opinion.
The extension specification under discussion does not stipulate this, but
it can be stipulated in other extensions.

(hat on again) I would encourage you or anybody else to develop an
extension specification providing methods to provide long descriptions
using mechanisms other than longdesc and include a conformance requirement
that longdesc be made "obsolete but conforming".

note: An extension relating to long description mechanisms does not have to
be developed within the a11y taskforce, but I would encourage it to be.


regards
SteveF

On 14 December 2012 00:31, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:

> On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses by [Friday
> 20th December, 23:59 EST] are preferred:
>
> Noted.
>
> > 3.  James Craig and Matt Turvey both stated that an image description
> should be available to all users. Nobody disagreed, and several people
> agreed. A bug was raised[3] to track this. The proposed specification
> already requires user agents to enable users, as well as assistive
> technologies, to access the functionality. The Opera, iCab and Firefox
> implementations all do this. The NVDA implementation was held back with the
> explicitly stated hope that the functionality would be made available to
> all users through the browser.
> >
> > a.  Proposed Resolution – Resolved Fixed: The recent update to the
> specification addresses this by more clearly stating that the requirements
> apply to all users, not just assistive technology.
> >
> > b.   If this is still unclear in the specification, please provide
> specific editorial suggestions to improve it.
>
> I think this is a mis-representation of our intent. The point was that any
> long description content should be provided in a feature other than
> @longdesc.
>
> > 7.  Matt Turvey, James Craig, and Silvia Pfeiffer suggested the
> specification could be changed to state that longdesc is obsolete.
> >
> > a.  Proposed Resolution- Resolved Won’t Fix: In a specification of a
> single feature, this makes no sense. The question might be relevant to the
> HTML Working Group if it wants to consider incorporating this extension
> directly into the HTML specification.
>
> Clarifying: we requested "obsolete but conforming" not just "obsolete"…
> Also, my recollection is that a lot more people suggested this, including
> two of the task force chairs, when they removed their metaphorical chair
> hats.
>
> James
>
>

<http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 09:36:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:32 UTC