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

Re: example spec text for longdesc

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:51:52 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimhiZcbx-h5QzzmQ8OdHqC2QPSU3_ztzrW2YTA=@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi henri,

> The right way is to consider what problems users face and what are
> appropriate ways to solve those problems--not to focus on the
> preservation of something that has been labeled as an accessibility
> feature.

"longdesc" is just an attribute, in itself it has no meaning, it is
how meaning and functionality is attached to it through its
specification and implementation.

I would suggest where there is strong consensus in the accessibility
community is in the requirement for an unambiguous and explicit
accessibility feature in HTML5 to be able to associate  an image a
with a description that may be structured html content and may be
located on a page other than the one the image is in. This is
considered to be a feature that solves real problems for real users
[1].

This feature is currently not included in HTML5. while i believe it is
not set in stone, the attribute known as 'longdesc' appears to be the
main contender for hanging the specification and implementaion of this
feature off.


so how best to specify and implement this feature is a discussion worth having.


[1]http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/LongdescRetention

regards
stevef

On 25 March 2011 12:03, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 07:51 -0500, Laura Carlson wrote:
>> Henri, how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to inspect a
>> longdesc URL and issue a warning if it suspects that the description
>> resource is unlikely to contain a description of the image (i.e., if
>> the URL is an empty string,
>
> Easy.
>
>> or points to the same URL as the src
>> attribute,
>
> Easyish.
>
>> And
>> how difficult would it be for conformance checkers to issue errors if
>> the longdesc URL has certain file suffixes, such as .gif, .jpeg, .png
>> etc.)?
>
> Easy though bogus as far as the theory of URLs go. (In theory, you
> should deference the URL and check the content type, but that would make
> conformance dependent on external resources, which is kinda
> undesirable.)
>
> In any case, approaching longdesc from the point of view of ease of
> conformance checker implementation is the wrong way to approach it.
> Frankly, all this seems to presume that longdesc must axiomatically be
> preserved and then rationalizations are sought to justify the
> conclusion.
>
> The right way is to consider what problems users face and what are
> appropriate ways to solve those problems--not to focus on the
> preservation of something that has been labeled as an accessibility
> feature.
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen@iki.fi
> http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
>
>
>



-- 
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 Friday, 25 March 2011 12:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:23 UTC