Re: The use cases table, modified, for comment

> Deborah,
> I have made some very minor changes mostly on the first table; have put it into a separate branch on the repo:
> 
> https://rawgit.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/ivan-comment-on-analysis/extended-description-analysis.html

Thank you, Ivan.

> - the second table says 'no' to 'exposed meaningfully to the accessibility API and UA' for the column on 'details with src and role'. I
> am not sure that is fair.

Our definition of "meaningfully" for the purposes of this table is "in a
way that the API and UA can understand this is further description". In
other words, longdesc and describedby both give enough information to
say that this is specifically a description of the referred-to object;
longdesc says "this is further description, beyond the basic" and
describedby says "this is a basic description". How the user
agents and AT deal with that meaningful information is another issue,
but we maintain it is important semantic information that needs to be
exposed.

The only way this can happen is if the role referred to above is
specifically something which indicates "extended description".
describedat would do that; a different role as yet unspecified would do
that. But a generic role would not do anything of the sort.

> - the implementation complexity seems to be really guess work. I made some changes there to make it a bit more fair

we only touched the 2nd table. PF is full of browser implementers, and
Dpub accessibility has none, so we thought they were better able than we
are to populate that table. :-)

Deborah

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 13:54:50 UTC