Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

Jonas Sicking wrote:
[...]
> Sorry, I didn't mean that the WAI did a poor job in designing
> @aria-describedby by not following any particular syntax. What I
> intended to say was that comments regarding @aria-desribedbys syntax
> should be brought up with WAI, not with the HTML WG.

No worries, this is something we will probably look at as a part of the
new HTML A11y TF.

> If implementations want to keep implementing @longdesc that is fine.
> The big win to me is simplifying our message to authors regarding how
> to make pages accessible.
> 
> I.e. being able to say "use @aria-describedby" is a win over saying
> "use @aria-describedby, except on an image where you can use
> @longdesc, except you probably don't want to use @longdesc if the
> description is in the same page since then if the base-uri is set
> using <base> since then the relative link in @longdesc no longer
> points inside the resource. And on tables you can also use @summary"

lol +1

>> >> 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.
> >
> > Again disingenuous. Those who find either feature useful, find it
> > useful. Admittedly there has been bad science on both sides (sic) so I
> > don't want to add to it a this point. This statement is my own opinion
> > and nothing else.

Jonas Sicking wrote:
>I'm not sure what you feel is disingenuous? This comment wasn't saying
>anything about bad decisions by the ARIA spec.

Apologies, it's just when it comes to presenting numbers as as rational
for removing items from the spec - I get a little nervous.

Cheers

Josh