W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: EOWG Comments on longdesc

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 10:38:23 -0600
Message-ID: <52CED07F.4060603@w3.org>
To: bim@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Hi Bim & all EOWG,

A while ago EOWG submitted comments on the longdesc spec. In December they replied to our comments. One of the comments they did not accept is one that Bim made.

Here's the paragraph in the current draft: "There are many ways users can successfully interact with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute is designed to ensure that for everyday work, a user has enough information to replace an image, and often this is more helpful than a detailed description of every image. The longdesc attribute is designed to complement this functionality, to meet the following use cases." (from <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>

In EOWG's wiki where we collected comments, Bim said "The leading paragraph to the use cases seems very confusing, terms like "everyday work" and "replaces an image" are unlikely to be clearly understood." and Bim suggested the following rewording:
"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. Where an image contains more information than can be contained in a short description, the longdesc attribute is designed to complement this functionality, to meet the following use cases."
(from <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Longdesc_review#Use_Cases_and_Requirements>)

They replied: "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."  (from <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2013OctDec/0045.html>)

Do we want to suggest another edit that addresses their reply? Or tell them which of the wording in their draft does not work well and why -- and hope they will come up with suitable edits?

*Please share your thoughts on our reply* in the wiki under "@@[ideas for our reply:...]" at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/Longdesc_review#Use_Cases_and_Requirements>
  (or you can reply to this e-mail if easier)

Thanks!
~Shawn
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2014 16:38:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 January 2014 16:38:35 UTC