- From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:32:15 +0200
- To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi EO WG, Just had a look at the changes and I’m fine with them. They condensed our suggestion for the “Use Cases and Requirements” section to the essential, but I think that makes it very clear and even easier to understand. Best, Eric On 13 Jun 2014, at 19:48, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote: > Dear Shawn and EOWG, > > please find below our detailed replies, but in summary we have > accepted all your comments and they are incorporated into our latest > draft at > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html > which we hope to make a Candidate Recommendation. > > We hope the changes we have made satisfy your outstanding comments. > Thank you for your efforts and patience - we feel the end results has > been a better document. > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote: > >> Dear Chaals and TF, >> >> Thank you for your response. Here are replies on a few points: >> >>>> * Introduction: Provide a little context at the beginning, briefly >>>> explaining what long descriptions are. For suggested wording, see >>>> the Image concepts page <http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/> >>>> (note the lower sections have "Why is this important" and "How to >>>> make images accessible") and Complex >>>> images<http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex>. >>> >>> We will add more information in the introduction as suggested. >>> However the pages you suggested do not appear stable enough to be a >>> reference in this document, so we will not link specifically to >>> them. >> >> Correct, the pages are not stable enough to be referenced in the >> document -- indeed we will be editing them soon. We did not intend to >> suggest that they be referenced; we only pointed to them for ideas >> for wording in the Introduction. >> >> On 21 January we checked again for new Introduction wording at >> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html> >> and do not see it yet. Please inform us when the Introduction wording >> is ready for us to review in reply to this comment. > > We have now done this. > >>>> *Suggested edit to the paragraph under Use Cases and Requirements >>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>: "Text alternatives are >>>> required so that users can successfully understand and interact >>>> with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute >>>> is designed to contain a short description. This is sufficient for >>>> most images, and should provide enough information to ensure that >>>> users understand the image's purpose. Some images contain more >>>> information than can effectively be provided in a short >>>> description. The longdesc attribute is designed for longer >>>> descriptions to meet use cases such as the following." — >>>> although, >>>> some of this information may be better in the Introduction per >>>> previous comment... >>> >>> Whether an image needs a long description can depend on context as >>> well as the image itself. Alt is designed to provide a functional >>> replacement text, not a short description. In many cases text >>> alternatives are not necessary to support interaction. We therefore >>> do not propose to adopt this edit. >> >> EOWG is uncomfortable with the first paragraph at >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>. For example, "everyday >> work" seems to make light of the importance of text equivalents in >> all cases; "information to replace an image" may not be understood; >> "often this is more helpful than a detailed description of every >> image" seems a tangential comment rather than a key point. >> >> We provided a suggested edit to show the flavor of what we think the >> paragraph should say; however, we are fine with you changing our >> suggested edit. Here is another suggestion that hopefully addresses >> your concerns: >> "Text alternatives for images enable people who cannot see to get the >> information that is provided in images. The alt attribute is designed >> to contain short functionally equivalent text, either the function of >> the image or a short description, based on the context. For many >> images, short alt is sufficient for users to get the information they >> need about the image. For some images and contexts, users need more >> detailed information from the image. The longdesc attribute is >> designed as a means to provide this detailed information, such as in >> the following use cases." > > We have taken this as a base, and hope the result is satisfactory. > >> We hope that between the two suggestions you can see what we think >> are the importance points to get across here and how it has a very >> different flavor than what is in the draft -- and we *welcome for you >> to edit our suggestions*. >> >> Also note the related comment about the Introduction -- Probably this >> information is best in the Introduction and then the Use Cases >> section needs only a simple sentence to introduce it. > > Indeed, thank you for the suggestion. We did that. > >>>> * Current wording: "This document does not define the term >>>> "accessible" nor accessibility, but uses them with the sense they >>>> have in [WCAG]" Change reference from WCAG to Introduction to Web >>>> Accessibility <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility> then can >>>> say more directly: "This document does not define the terms >>>> "accessible" or "accessibility"; it uses them as explained in >>>> Introduction to Web Accessibility. >>> >>> That document referenced has no apparent stability or persistence >>> policy. For a reference we prefer to use a W3C Recommendation which >>> has both. >> >> WCAG 2.0 does not define or explain accessibility, and thus it seems >> a weak reference for your point. WAI Resources such as "Introduction >> to Web Accessibility" are commonly referred to in W3C specs -- WCAG >> itself refers to <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php>. WAI >> Resources follow the W3C URI Persistence Policy >> (<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence.html>). While we provide a >> changelog for many WAI Resources, we do not provide a public archive >> of all previous versions of most WAI Resources. >> >> Please reconsider the best reference in this case, and let us know >> how we can provide specific, documented assurances with regard to the >> stability and persistence of "Introduction to Web Accessibility" to >> meet your needs. > > We took a simple statement from the intro document to say what we > meant. We provided a further informative link to the introductory > document. > >> We look forward to your further reply. > > cheers > > Chaals and Mark > > -- > Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex > chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com -- Eric Eggert, Web Accessibility Specialist WAI-ACT Project I’m yatil on IRC.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 15:32:44 UTC