W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll - update 2

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:29:42 -0700
Message-ID: <2408A4FAD3E14219B7AA4A544AE8DD5F@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
>>?> Honestly, I am flabbergasted by ... this insanity.

I prefer the term unsanity, but I think I agree.

On top of all this, the gov doc Ian is referencing looked fairly 
convincing.
When I see something like that I would think the champions of @summary 
have to counter that alternative understanding directly.
That is, @summary is a weak substitute for adequate clues in the 
surrounding text and other supporting content.
With that statement in mind, one position of @summary supporters must 
be that yes, we 'All' need the supporting stuff recommended by the gov 
article and we 'All' want to improve how @summary and related 
'assistive' hooks are provided and used.
>From the article, I might find elsewhere an argument that @alt and 
@long...  should be obsoleted and instead authors follow the pattern 
of appropriate info scattered into the surrounding content. If this is 
true and a reasonable comparision, then we just need to do a much 
better job with @summary and supporting info so that authors feel the 
somewhat parallel needs to have descriptive info in the related and 
surrounding and otherwise referenced content and, importantly, to aim 
some specific assistive or alternative technology and special content 
via @summary and maybe some other targeted keyword containers.
For instance, how about a chance to formulate a suggestion to augment 
@summary with other targeted aids such as @structure to describe some 
info like axes, values, and blanks along with something like 
@navigation that tells of interactive features used to extract info 
from the table.

Thank You and Best Regards,
Joe
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 15:30:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:43 GMT