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

Re: CP, ISSUE-30: Link longdesc to role of img [Was: hypothetical question on longdesc]

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 15:57:22 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2krUUax3E=4p5Ed+_PifAHzmeAC27qR3MRi4AGH4-9LBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, janina@rednote.net, xn--mlform-iua@målform.no <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, rubys@intertwingly.net, laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com, mjs@apple.com, paul.cotton@microsoft.com, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> David Singer wrote:
>>
>> I think Silvia has shown a great degree of dedication to the users and
>> their needs, and significant flexibility, and that personal comments
>> such as this are out of place - especially since, at least in email,
>> you also show a fairly…inflexible?…streak on occasion.
>
> Fair enough. I don't mean to single out Silvia alone, there are many
> engineers who are refusing to listen to the requests and needs being
> articulated by non-sighted users when it comes to wanting a longer
> description of the poster image.

Just to make this clear: I have listened to blind users. I am well
aware of the need to describe the poster and I have made a suggestion
for how to do this with existing markup. I have then spoken again to
more technically-involved blind users that have agreed - no, more so:
suggested - that @aria-label is a sufficient for description of a
video poster.

Your argument continues to circle around the first fact that we need a
description for poster. I do not reject that need. I have found a
workable solution. You will always be able to find mis-markup
(including bad choices of poster images) that will not follow the
intent of the spec, but riding on that fact gets you nowhere. Any
attribute and element can be misused. What we need to find a solution
for is the good case where the developer does what is expected of
them. And we have a solution for that case. So, for me that is a
problem solved.


> Suggesting that non-sighted users don't need, or won't require a means of
> understanding what that expensive image will be is both unfair and
> unrealistic.

That is a mis-characterisation of what I am saying.


> Silvia, I apologize if my frustration and despair took the form of singling
> you out.

Apology accepted. I have a thick skin. We know that of each other, so
I took no offense. But I do believe you misunderstand me at the least,
and have definitely mis-characterized my approach.


Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2012 04:58:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:31 UTC