- From: Aurelien Levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:18:25 +0200
- 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>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTi=WbBzswPTjCtmrwD7_a2xY99jHOrHaTXb=YTEs@mail.gmail.com>
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 http://www.references.modernisation.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/RGAA-v2.2_Annexe2-Tests.pdfand 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