W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2010

[Bug 10455] Mint a describedby attribute for the img element

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:07:42 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Oq8li-0007my-2h@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10455





--- Comment #32 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-30 18:07:41 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
> (In reply to comment #24)
> > what is there about "long description" that implies this item is going
> > to be an exact text equivalent of the image, and not a longer caption?
> 
> What implies to Opera users that the context menu item called "Long
> Description" points to an equivalent?

Actually, it says "Image Description". Opera documentation tells us why this
menu item exists, and what to expect from the browser when clicking on this
item.

> 
> If you're just saying we should come up with a better term to use as UI text,
> feel free to try.
> 
> As to what tells the user agent that it's a long description, that's the
> purpose of an RDFa annotation.
>

But without there being a agreed to approach to the use of RDFa, it's
meaningless. All it can do is add an additional piece of data that can be
combined with other data. That can be useful, but isn't anything specific to
accessibility. 

It is those aforementioned expectations of behavior that really matter.


> > For all of the talk about the importance of "semantics" in HTML5, and having
> > semantic equivalents for this and that, why on earth would we then remove an
> > attribute that does have a specific "semantic" meaning? 
> 
> This bug is not about the removal of an attribute, but the addition of one.
> 

Whether the removal of one, or the addition of the other, it all boils down to
what is the criteria by which these decisions are based.

Isn't semantics the reason for 30+ new elements and attributes? Wouldn't
something like described-by be just as meaningful as, say, &hidden? What are
the factors being used to decide what is semantically meaningful enough in
order to be added to HTML5? Or, as the case may be, left in HTML5? 

What is the objective criteria used to judge when an element or attribute is
semantically meaningful enough to be added to, or kept in, HTML5?

There has to be fundamental design principles governing these decisions; ones
concrete enough that each decision can be tested against the principles for
determining inclusion or not.

> > Expected means "likely to happen". I expect the UAs to implement the renderings
> > in the section.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > People are going to see EXPECT, and their expectations are going to be set. I
> > would expect that most UAs would understand this, and act accordingly. UAs
> > should have enough sense to know that when customer expectations are set, they
> > better meet them.
> 
> If you say so, but people's "expectations" do not change what is required for
> conformance.

Conformance that goes against expectations leads to failure.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 30 August 2010 18:07:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 30 August 2010 18:07:46 GMT