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

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:55:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4DFB9502.1030808@intertwingly.net>
To: public-html@w3.org
On 06/17/2011 01:28 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> John Foliot writes:
>> Matthew Turvey wrote:
>>>
>>> Since Orca and VoiceOver do not currently implement support for
>>> londesc, *by default* longdesc is inaccessible on the Mac and Linux
>>> platforms.
>>
>> This is patently false:
>>
>
> Indeed it is false. I suspect Matt's argument hinges on the word
> "default." Because the end to end solution doesn't come with the
> computer when you bring it home from the store, longdesc isn't
> accessible, "by default." This quaint logic would seem to invalidate
> everything humans use from hearing aids, to our university educations,
> to our very clothes. After all, we don't come out of mothers wombs with
> such things, "by default."
>
> And, it would seem to invalidate Windows access to longdesc. After all,
> the Windows computer from the store doesn't come with HAWS, or
> Window-Eyes, or NVDA, or Zoom-Text.
>
>
> However, I tsuspect the real point of Matt's quaint argument about
> "default," is the specious argument that, if one is to rely on an
> add-on, it may as well be the ARIA add-on. As though such add-ons were
> as prevalent as JAWS, Window-Eyes, NVDA, and Firefox plugins are
> prevalent for longdesc! Oh, I don't doubt we'll have such things in the
> future, but we don't have them know. Chaas is correct, imho, we're
> talking 5-10 years.
>
> Which brings me to a complaint I just need to get off my chest. Where,
> oh where are all these ARIA champions when the real work of integrating ARIA into
> real solutions that real people can use to solve real problems is being
> done? They are so eager to champion change proposals for HTML 5, but
> they're MIA in the real work of mapping ARIA into HTML 5 and the real work of
> developing appropriate guidance for user agents on how to support ARIA
> in browsers. They want the solutions, but seem disinterested in creating
> solutions.
>
> Despite the joint HTML&  PF task force on user agent implementation:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/aria-ua-task-force.html
>
> it's been only the usual PF suspects doing the work to create real
> solutions. Pardon me if I find it hard to hold any respect for such
> attitudes and behaviors. And, pardon me if I have little respect for
> their attendant claims of knowledge of the suitability of ARIA for this
> particular purpose. Yes, I'm aware we don't appeal to authority in the
> HTML-WG. But, it seems to me in this instance, we need to admit both lack of
> subject competence and poor reasoning.

Let's keep this civil.  Statements along the lines of "We certainly 
could have used your help when we were integrating ARIA into HTML5" is a 
legitimate point of view.

Jumping from there to "lack of subject competence" is not only an error 
in logic, but also a violation of the Discussion Guidelines of this 
mailing list.

Furthermore (without seeing the counter proposal), I can see a plausible 
progression from a line of reasoning "longdesc has known problems and no 
known use cases and therefore I won't worry about it further" to 
"longdesc has known problems but now appears to have valid use cases; 
perhaps it would be best to see if we can accelerate correct solutions".

If that is indeed the case that Jonas intends to make, key would be 
establishing that ARIA is the correct solution (or at a minimum, /a/ 
correct solution), and that it will be viable and relevant in an 
appropriate period of time.

> Janina

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 17:55:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:33 GMT