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

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:15:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4AE95D3E.1070805@xn--mlform-iua.no>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking On 09-10-29 07.29:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>> Jonas Sicking On 09-10-29 00.57:
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Leif Halvard Silli:
>>>> Jonas Sicking On 09-10-27 20.15:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Leif Halvard Silli:


> Ok, point taken. I don't actually know enough about
> accessibility to say if aria-label and/or aria-describedby
> could replace alt. Reading the spec it actually doesn't seem
> like either does. It says regarding labels:
> "A label should provide the user with the essence of what the
> object does"

I continuously said that aria-labelledby and aria-describedby do 
not represent fallback. (Thus it is a consession when the WAI 
consensus document permits @labelledby to be used instead of @alt)

But I was wrong in comparing @aria-label to @alt. ARIA on 
aria-label: "A related concept is title in HTML". And on 
aria-labelledby: "A related concept is label in XForms [XForms] 
and HTML [HTML]."

> And regarding descriptions:
> "a description is intended to provide detail that some users
> might need"
> However neither seems to describe @alt. Both the HTML4 spec,
> and the implementations I know, treat @alt as fallback content:
> "alternate text to serve as content when the element cannot be 
> rendered normally"

I take it that in your view neither aria-label, aria-labelledby 
nor aria-describedby represent a [near] duplicate feature of @alt.

> So if I have an image that contains a fancy rendering of a
> headline, the @alt attribute would contain the actual text of
> that headline. However it doesn't seem appropriate to put the
> text of the headline in neither an aria label or an aria
> description.

Good point.

[ ... alt = success story ... ]

> The same can not be said for @longdesc and @summary, neither of
> which has seen any significant amount of real-world uptake.
> Yes, there is more than zero uptake, but I don't think there is
> enough to warrant having duplicate (or near-duplicate)
> features.

Above you lead us to see that the neither aria-label, 
aria-labelledby nor aria-describedby are fallback, and thus are 
not [near] duplicate features of alt.

In my previous reply, I gave you the spec definition of @longdesc 
that you asked for: It is a long variant of alt. Thus it is fallback.

Therefore I am baffled that you bring up "duplicate feature" again.
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 29 October 2009 09:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:53 UTC