W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > November 2012

longdesc spec review

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 15:34:58 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfK4CTY71iFbxVA5Mf4EN+2O=xXXPVaySY9qUrAet3=og@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html-comments <public-html-comments@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <w3b@chaals.com>
Hi Chaals,

You asked on twitter:
accessibility: Please review my longdesc spec
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/b63325998cc1/longdesc1/longdesc.html
… - Is it ready to propose it as a Formal draft?
https://twitter.com/chaals/status/266954317565673472

I am not sure where you want comments to be sent. I couldn't find a
Bugzilla component so I am sending this to the HTML comments list. I
hpe that is okay.

First I want to thank you and say you have done a great job putting
this together.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/b63325998cc1/longdesc1/longdesc.html

I have just a couple of questions/comments. And I found a few typos
and a markup glitch.

QUESTIONS:

1. How soon can your spec be folded into HTML5 proper? HTML5 lacking a
fully conformant longdesc attribute is a real problem in:

* Teaching how to make accessible complex images accessible in a
semantic, programmatically determinable way while adhering to design
constraints.

* Making complex images accessible in a semantic, programmatically
determinable way while adhering to design constraints.

* Updating legacy HTML4 content to HTML5. Valid HTML4 documents that
contain longdesc attributes should be valid HTML5 simply by changing
the doctype.

Lack of longdesc is a gaping hole in HTML5. I urge the HTMLWG to act
to wast no further time and incorporate your spec into HTML5 proper
NOW so that so that everyone can embrace HTML5 rather than finding it
an impediment to doing their work.

2. I am not sure what you mean here:

"Authoring requirement: the link is to part of a document, the
description should be contained within an element which is the target
of the link."

Are you talking about fragments? If so maybe it may be clearer to say
something like:

"The link must point to either a description identified by a fragment
[*] in a different document or a description identified fragment [*]
in the same document."

[* fragment ref]
http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/history.html#the-indicated-part-of-the-document

TYPOS:

1. "This specification defines a longdesc attribute to extended
descriptions to images in HTML5-based content"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

2. "Requires: Discoverability,"

The comma is unneeded.

3. "Many well-known images are already described by other sources. The
copyright on those sources is not necessarily compatible with
repeating the description, but there is little value in making a new
one, and "

Missing a period at the end of the sentence. The last comma and the
word "and" should be deleted.

4. "It must be possible to associate a description in the body of a
page with an image in that page"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

5. "It must be possible to re-use a single description for multiple
occurrences of an image"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

6. "A user must be able to return from the description to the image"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

7. "It should be possible to use existing tools and techniques to
associate an image with its description"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

8. "Any proposed mechanism MUST include a means of accessing content
added by authors using the HTML4 and XHTML1 attribute longdesc"

Missing a period at the end of the sentence.

MARKUP GLITCH

1. In the last "Backwards Compatibility" section <dd>'s are messed up.
Should be:

<dd>It should be possible to use existing tools and techniques to
associate an image with its description.</dd>
<dd>The longer description mechanism MUST be easy to author, easy to
maintain and have authoring support in terms of tools and educational
material to accommodate authors of differing skill sets.</dd>
<dd>Any proposed mechanism MUST include a means of accessing content
added by authors using the HTML4 and XHTML1 attribute longdesc.</dd>

The last two <dd>s are currently outside of the definition list. And
there are some extra <br>'s and <p>'s.

That's about it.

Deep thanks Chaals for your work.

Best Regards,
Laura

--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 9 November 2012 21:37:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 9 November 2012 21:37:26 GMT