W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Proposed adaptive image element

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 10:06:48 -0700
Cc: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <59DDB1EA-A80F-48BF-9414-58584D4B4B2C@apple.com>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>

On Jul 24, 2012, at 4:48 , Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Mat,
> 
>> With the above in mind Id love to discuss the next steps in working towards
>> a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention of filing a bug
>> to have this proposal officially entered into the WG system  is that our
>> next course of action?
> 
> Filing a bug is step one in the HTML Working Group decision process.
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html
> 
> With regard to accessibility two things that may be worth consideration:
> 
> 1. The possibility of responsive text alternatives that could parallel
> the responsive images if needed. The <picture> proposal allows for
> different sources for images at different sizes. But authors could use
> different images at different sizes and not just a cropped down
> version of a single image. No text alternative mechanism is provided
> for that use case. Allowing alt on <source> could provide for that use
> case. Something like the following might work:
> 

No, we should absolutely not design for such an abuse; the reason for multiple sources is to provide format or size choice, not give completely different information/images.


> <picture>
> <source src="mobile.jpg  alt="text alternative">
> <source src="medium.jpg"  alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 600px">
> <source src="fullsize.jpg"  alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 900px">
> <img src="mobile.jpg" alt="text alternative">
> </picture>
> 
> 2. A picture element could allow for semantic programmatically
> determinable in-page rich text long description, if a description
> element was added to the proposal:
> 
> <picture>
> <img src="image.jpg" alt="text alternative">
> <desc>structured rich text description with headings, lists, tables, etc.</desc>
> </picture>
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> 
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
>> HTML WG,
>> 
>> I wanted to check-in with you guys briefly on the status of the RICGs
>> proposal, and update you on a few recent developments with regards to the
>> proposed `picture` element:
>> 
>> A few vendors have expressed an interest in prototyping a native
>> implementation of the `picture` element in the near future. With so much
>> discussion surrounding this topic Im concerned that theres still a great
>> deal left open to interpretation, even with the proposal codified at
>> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/wiki/Picture_Element_Proposal and
>> detailed at
>> http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/06/18/florians-compromise/
>> 
>> Further: the Drupal team is currently discussing the inclusion of the
>> `picture` element in Drupal 8 core, along with the speculative polyfill we
>> developed here at Filament Group ( http://drupal.org/node/1170478 ). I
>> posted that I didnt recommend the use of `picture` prior to a specification
>> or native implementation ( http://drupal.org/node/1170478#comment-6248598 )
>> and that they might consider the related `div`-based script that replicates
>> the native behavior, for the time being. It does seem that some of the
>> decision-makers involved are still leaning towards the `picture` element
>> itself ( https://twitter.com/attiks/statuses/225636567618818048 , for
>> example ).
>> 
>> I worry that implementors and the developer community alike, having seen a
>> clear need and use for this element as proposed, are considering
>> implementing and using it preemptively. My fear is that either party doing
>> so before a specification has been solidified could result in competing
>> implementations, and broken production sites.
>> 
>> With the above in mind Id love to discuss the next steps in working towards
>> a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention of filing a bug
>> to have this proposal officially entered into the WG system  is that our
>> next course of action?  Also, any information I could relay back to the RICG
>> and interested parties would be hugely appreciated.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Mat Marquis
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2012 17:07:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC