- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:44:05 +0100
- To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Cc: W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Where do we file bugs against ARIA? Is this the place: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/enter_bug.cgi?product=ARIA ? Leif H Silli Janina Sajka, Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:35:51 -0400: > Well, there's certainly no reason you need to accept my word on any of > this. File a bug if you think it's a bug. That's the responsible thing > to do, no? > > Janina > > Leif Halvard Silli writes: >> To look blindly at 'calculation' is also to miss a point: You have >> defined what an 'img' role is. You could have said that 'img' element >> might also have 'description links', but that you have not defined what >> a 'description links' precisely is and precisely how it is handled, in >> the current version of ARIA. >> >> Leif Halvard Silli >> >> Janina Sajka, Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:47:12 -0400: >>> You're missing my point. >>> >>> There's no calculation relating to longdesc because there's no need for >>> it. As I keep reminding everyone, ARIA-DescribedAT does not exist. >>> There's no need to define rules for what to use, because there's no >>> competing ARIA markup that serves the use case of HTML's longdesc. >>> >>> In the future, when we have an ARIA-DescribedAT, we will undoubtedly >>> need to say something here. But, that day has not dawned. >>> >>> Meanwhile, ARIA-LabeledBy, -DescribedBy, etc., etc., all figure in alt >>> text. For this there is indeed the need to consider precedence, which >>> our doc attempts to do at great detail--because this calculation is >>> important. >>> >>> PS: This should actually serve as further evidence that ARIA-DescribedBy >>> isn't about long text alternatives but rather about short text >>> alternatives, about that attribute known as "alt text" in html. >>> >>> Janina >>> >>> Leif Halvard Silli writes: >>>> Janina Sajka, Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:15:24 -0400: >>>> >>>>>> ARIA defines where @title and @alt fits in in ARIA: In the accessible >>>>>> name. But ARIA does not explain where the longdesc link - or if you >>>>>> wish: an image with a longdesc - fits in. >>>>>> >>>>> So? >>>> [ snip ] >>>>>> However, while, ARIA expects AT to say 'image' if the element has >>>>>> role=img, and expects the accessible name to be presented as the >>>>>> content of the image, it does not explain when and where the mere >>>>>> presence of a longdesc should be conveyed to the user. ARIA is silent. >>>>>> And makes no implicit expectations. >>>>>> >>>>> No reason we should. You still haven't made the case that we are >>>>> obligated to do this, or that we have a reason to do it. >>>> >>>> That compelling reason, is found in the description of the img role: [1] >>>> >>>> "An img can contain captions and descriptive text, as well as >>>> multiple image files that when viewed together give the impression of a >>>> single image." >>>> >>>> Further more the characteristics section links to IMG in HTML4 and >>>> IMGGROUP in DTB. The later consist of one or more IMG, and each IMG may >>>> contain longdesc.] >>>> >>>> Hence, many in the readership of ARIA 1.0, will assume that 'img' here >>>> is linked to HTML, whose image element is named <img>. And thus, that >>>> 'img' is formulated after the model of <img>. And so I ask: Where is >>>> HTML4's @longdesc in that description? And where is it said that one >>>> might actually also find a description link inside an 'img'? The 'img' >>>> model of ARIA simply looks incomplete. [I had similar input during your >>>> last call too, but ...] >>>> >>>>> From the accessible name calculation section and from other places in >>>> ARIA 1.0, it is further clear that an role 'img' element, from an AT >>>> perspective, only contains 'author' provided content. Thus: No >>>> 'contents' content. [For other readers: 'Author' content refers to >>>> contend specified via attributes: alt, title, aria-label, >>>> aria-labbelledby, aria-describedby. The clue is that AT only presents >>>> to the user such content that is explicitly referred to - or contained >>>> - in the designated attributes. ] >>>> >>>> And so I ask: Is @longdesc 'author' provided content or 'contents'? It >>>> is clearly author provided - it contains a 'human inserted' URL. And >>>> so, from that perspective, it fits right into ARIA's model of 'img'. >>>> The only - somewhat dull - issue, is that @longdesc does not contain an >>>> author provided 'link text'. Only an author provided URL. It is an >>>> on/off thing: It is the author who adds it, or not. And then there is a >>>> standard presentation of that link. >>>> >>>> The description of the 'img' role, also says: >>>> >>>> "In order for elements with a role of img be perceivable, authors >>>> SHOULD provide alternative text or a label determined by the accessible >>>> name calculation." >>>> >>>> Which makes me ask: What about a link to a longer description for the >>>> image? SHOULD or MAY authors provide that? Do some images need - or not >>>> - a long, independent description in order to be perceivable? >>>> >>>> Apparently, the ARIA task force *did* think that one description links >>>> are sometimes needed, because one or two ARIA specs/guides tell/told >>>> how one can use @aria-describedBY plus an anchor element to do that ... >>>> However the very description of the 'img' role, does not mention it ... >>>> >>>>>> An image with longdesc indicates 'complex data image'. Hence, it seems >>>>>> logical with an early announcement about the presence the longdesc. >>>>>> >>>>> Complex data? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe it's a painting by Raphael. I >>>>> would not characterize a long description of a painting as data >>>>> structure. >>>> >>>> Right. I should have skipped 'data' and only said 'complex' - or said >>>> 'complex or data filled'. >>>> >>>> My main point here, was *early announcement*, so the user can choose to >>>> go for the long description instead of having to listen to the short - >>>> but possibly still long - alternative text. Longdesc is binary thing: >>>> Either it exist, or it doesn't. And so, its presence says something >>>> about the 'nature' of the element. That is why I likened to a sort of >>>> role. And something to be announced early. >>>> >>>> Also, I think it is correct to say that *the author* [remember: >>>> 'author' provided content] consider the 'img' to be complex. The author >>>> decides what the 'img' needs. May be the 'img' doesn't contain so much >>>> 'data'. But the author still considers that an independent description >>>> is warranted, in order to go deep enough into its complexity. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/complete#img >>>> -- >>>> leif halvard silli >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 >>> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net >>> >>> Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org >>> Linux Foundation http://a11y.org >>> >>> Chair, Protocols & Formats >>> Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>> >>> > > -- > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > > Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org > Linux Foundation http://a11y.org > > Chair, Protocols & Formats > Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 23:44:39 UTC