- From: Bim Egan <bim@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:46:33 +0100
- To: "'EOWG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi EOWG,
I agree with Eric, all requested changes appear to have been made. However,
I have two concerns:
1. The shortness of the abstract, which doesn't give a clear overview of the
document.
2. A note under 3. The longdesc Attribute:
"Note that this extension changes the definition of a hyperlink in HTML, by
allowing a longdesc attribute to occur inside a hyperlink."
This could cause confusion, surely the longdesc attribute can only occur
inside an image element? The image itself may be inside a link, but if this
is what is meant, it should be made clear. Example code samples don't cover
this point
Shawn: I'll be raising comment 2 with Mark and Jeanne, as I have usability
and accessibility concerns about this and they may be able to answer these
concerns.
Cheers,
Bim
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/lon
gdesc1/longd
> esc.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/lo
ngdesc1/lon
>> gdesc.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
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 17:46:58 UTC