W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2010

Re: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: Aurelien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:25 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=WbBzswPTjCtmrwD7_a2xY99jHOrHaTXb=YTEs@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, janina@rednote.net, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
I totaly agree with John and his will to create a formal objection.

For the "External reference" point I can at least provide one example of
accessibility government guidelines based on WCAG 2.0 and requiring longdesc
attribut for complete description of complex images.
It's the test : "4.9. [Images] 9 : Présence de l'attribut longdesc pour
établir une relation entre une image et sa description longue" on page 47 of
203 of the RGAA
I'm pretty sure we can found almost the same thing in other documents
like SGQRI, Anysurfer, Accessiweb, UWEM, etc

Aurélien Levy

2010/8/11 John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

> Please be advised that I intend to work with a group of others to create a
> Formal Objection to this decision. In particular, I am appalled by the
> comments:
> "External references (standards, laws, etc) was also found to be a weak
> argument for inclusion." [1]
> ...and
> "The strongest argument against inclusion was the lack of use cases that
> clearly and directly support this specific feature of the language." [2]
> [1] Failing to continue to support @longdesc directly contravenes WCAG 2
> and the Techniques for Success Criteria - existing published Standards for
> the creation of accessible web content. Large entities and governments
> link to and/or directly reference this W3C Standard for authoring
> guidance, and removing a currently supported attribute for nothing more
> than political expediency in HTML5 is a bad decision: the net effect is
> those entities that *MUST* abide by WCAG 2 will be shut out from
> officially using "HTML 5 - the Markup Language". Ignoring regional laws
> and requirements is not something that the W3C should be trifling with.
> [2] The use case has been clearly explained and previously documented, and
> in at least one instance demonstrated in the wild.
> A) Great fanfare has gone into stating how "backwards compatible" HTML5
> will be, yet here, when it comes to accessibility support it seems to be
> less of a desired goal. This is an unacceptable double standard.
> B) @longdesc will continue to be part of HTML 4, and user-agents that
> purport to support HTML 4 will continue to need to support @longdesc. The
> net cost to continued support at the engineering (user-agent) level is
> $0.00 - the removal of this important attribute is nothing more than
> political gerrymandering.
> The most damning comment in the Chairs response however is reserved for
> this line: "... if longdesc is conforming, user agents will be required to
> support it;" - does this then suggest that once HTML 5 becomes an Official
> Standard minus @longdesc that user agents will no longer be required to
> support @longdesc? Who, outside of the browser manufacturers benefits from
> this exactly?
> (signed an extremely frustrated and angry)
> JF
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 08:18:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:42 UTC