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

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:06:42 +0000
Message-ID: <4AEB0F12.70002@cfit.ie>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 4:36 AM, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
>> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>> Given the trajectory for @longdesc over the past 10 years, I think
>>> there's good reason to believe that implementations will support ARIA
>>> before @longdesc sees any significant uptake.
>> I would be inclined to agree, but are we taking about vendors or
>> authors?
> I was saying that I think that implementaions will support ARIA before
> authors will start significantly using either @aria-describedby or
> @longdesc. Thus I don't think implementation support will be a
> limiting factor for authors.

Yes, me neither.

>> If (as Chaals pointed out), implementation in a browser may be
>> relatively trivial and /if/ it is a case that it could be beneficial for
>> @longdesc to be dusted off and revitalized (as such) - I think this may
>> be worth exploring.
>> For authors, re-animating use of @longdesc would tie into the paving the
>> cowpaths mantra - there may not have been a cow down this road for
>> sometime, but /if/ there is a ghost of a path I would be interested in
>> exploring it.
> I agree that if there is a cowpath we should definitely explore it,
> and quite likely standardize it. This is why I think that keeping @alt
> in the spec is the right thing to do.

Good stuff.

> However I don't see a cowpath for @longdesc given how little it's been used.

It would be a good idea for us to look at why this was the case, and
learn from it.

> Looking at the "ghost path" for @longdesc seems to indicate that its
> syntax was a poor one given that even the people that used @longdesc,
> missunderstood it to the extent that they didn't even fill out a URI.

That is a possibility. Though I think it has more to with @alt being
more "do-able" (in the sense that it can be short and snappy), @longdesc
content can be far more time consuming to author - due to being more
verbose etc so authors may often not have been bothered. Interesting to
hear your idea about poor syntax however.


Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 16:07:10 UTC

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