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

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:10:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfK+YHdFpgJSx5BuDupRr4-D-zuMXzFCrkWBX-U8AFS2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Hi Leif,

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
<xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote:
> Laura Carlson, Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:54:27 -0500:
>
>>> <picture>
>>>   <img src=file alt=text longdesc=description.url >
>>> </picture>
>>>
>>> QUESTION: How would users of the equipment listed on your
>>>           research page access that longdesc?
>>>   ANSWER: It would be broken in some of them...
>>>
>>> Browsers: I believe it would not work in a single one of the browsers
>>>           that you list. E.g. it would not work in iCab. Why not?
>>>           Because you cannot access the context menu for an image
>>>           that is hidden behind another element.
>>
>> This is incorrect Leif. It seems to work in all of them that I tested.
>>
>> Here is a test page:
>> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/picture-test.html
>
> When your message arrived, it was 3,5 hours since my reply to Adrian,
> where I included links to the <picture> test upon which I based the
> above claims. [*] But there is nothing in your message that signals
> that you or Geez have seen or evaluated that test page. So I am gonna
> assume that you deemed me incorrect without having checked my test page.
>
> |*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0064.hrml

I did not read message 0064 until today, Leif. I thought that you
hadn't tested anything per your message at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html
Hence, did my initial testing based upon your 0056 message.

> I checked your test page:
>
> (1) There is no responsive image  - or polyfill features that are
>     typical for such images -  in that test - it is just an
>     <img> with a picture wrapper around.

Correct. I based my test markup upon the markup that you provided in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html .
That was, and I quote:
<picture>
img src=file alt=text longdesc=description.url >
</picture>

> The picture wrapper
>     does not contain any image (via CSS) like the responsive
>     image polyfills always do. Obviously, in a picture polyfill
>     the picture image would (normally) cover the image of the img
>     element, which in turns makes the img inaccessible for
>     contextual menu access.

Any pollyfill would need to take into account accessibility
requirements for short and long text alternatives and engineer them to
provide needed functionality.

I wonder if a JavaScipt polyfill would work better by not covering
anything and swapping in the image.

> (2) To insinuate that I said that an unstyled <picture> element
>     would create anymore problems than an unstyled <div> or <span>
>     really isn't very helpful.

The markup that you provided in:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html
was indeed unstyled. Message #0056 is what I based my tests upon and
to which I replied. I haven't read further in this thread until today.

> And my test page I notified you about, do try to check the longdesc
> accessibility for that kind of polyfill:
> http://malform.no/testing/a-demo-of/picture-element-accessible-longdesc/

Thanks for the link Leif. I will take a look.

Best Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:10:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 16:10:48 GMT