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

Re: ISSUE-30 longdesc - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:21:16 -0500
Message-ID: <BANLkTimW-0EfqnPHcxbuXNj6ZixL12-osA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Chaals,

> I am a person who supports, in the long term, deprecating longdesc.

I am not.

longdesc is needed and ARIA is needed. A difference skill set exists
between JavaScript-Library/app developers and the run of the mill
content authors/web designers. Advanced skill set verses basic skill
set. One group may learn ARIA to develop  "Accessible Rich Internet
Applications" the other will use basic HTML to put up a web page or a
web site.

It gets back to what Cliff was talking about and what you said about
people having to read another large spec besides HTML5. I too
experience the same thing all too frequently here at my job. Content
authors may know basic HTML and be willing to put in longdesc for
complex images but they are not going to delve into other specs. ARIA
is not an option for these authors.

If content is to be made accessible by both groups of authors we need
both mechanisms. Anything else is a false choice and binary thinking.
longdesc is a useful tool that helps ordinary authors make content
accessible. Related solutions do not negate the need for longdesc [1].

Best Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/RelatedSolutionsDontNegateNeed

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 17:21:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:14 UTC