W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2011

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 09:45:34 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimSLii8kWGxkHXjZSD7TyUC1fDoog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Laura,

"From what I have gathered [1] [2] long descriptions are typically
redundant to the majority of users as they usually describe  what is
visually evident."

The use case for a description I encounter most often in web applications is
data presented in an image, I consider that having access to both image and
a structured HTML representation would be useful for a range of users
inlcuding users of screen magnifiers AT which traditonally do not process
HTML or provide access to content other than that provided by the browser.

I also think in cases such as the thematic images example:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#images-enhance
where a link is provided to further information about the image:
http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?cgroupid=-1&workid=15984&searchid=false&roomid=false&tabview=text&texttype=10
would be useful to a range of users.

>Again it is akin to closed captions being redundant to most people who
>can hear

in this case a device independent  method to access closed captions is
usually provided even though it is not considered useful for users who do
not have a hearing impairment or those who cannot see the captions. I would
not encourage authors to not provide device independent access to closed
captions.

>Another analogy would be if we were to make alt visible by default or
>provided visible indicators of  alt by default. Making indicators
>visible by default would cause needless work for designers to hide
>them or frustration to sighted users if designers didn't hide them.

alt is a different case as its display is contingent, its also almost
ubiquitous, every image on every page should have an alt attribute, the vast
majority of images do not require a description.

>Many artists, designers, and marketers do not want
>their visual designs changed/ruined with visible link text or
>indicators. Being  free from a visual encumbrance is an asset.

a simple CSS decalaration (example only this does not work):

img[longdesc]::marker {display:none}

will hardly be a barrier  to any of the above.

regards
stevef



On 7 April 2011 01:38, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> > "A very important requirement is to respect a web page's visual design
> > and have no *forced* visual encumbrance. It should be some type of
> > user choice."
> >
> > the display and format of most html features are stylable using CSS
>
> Yes. longdesc is one of them. I think Leif has styled longdesc to be
> visible.
>
> > what is the issue with having an indication of the presence of longdesc
> as a
> > default, which can then be styled away if required by developers or
> users?
>
> From what I have gathered [1] [2] long descriptions are typically
> redundant to the majority of users as they usually describe  what is
> visually evident.
>
> Again it is akin to closed captions being redundant to most people who
> can hear [3].
>
> Another analogy would be if we were to make alt visible by default or
> provided visible indicators of  alt by default. Making indicators
> visible by default would cause needless work for designers to hide
> them or frustration to sighted users if designers didn't hide them.
>
> Longdesc affords authors the native capability to provide information
> that is essential for blind and visually impaired users but would be
> redundant for sighted users and unacceptable to visual designers'
> aesthetics [4]. Many artists, designers, and marketers do not want
> their visual designs changed/ruined with visible link text or
> indicators. Being  free from a visual encumbrance is an asset.
>
> If it is a user option, the *user* can decide what it best for them.
> From what I have gathered it seems to me that the default should be
> opt-in not opt-out.
>
> Does this make sense to you?
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura
>
> [1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html
> [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0130.html
> [4]
> http://www.cssquirrel.com/2010/08/16/comic-update-alone-in-the-pitch-black-dark/#comment-32126
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 08:46:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:24 UTC