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
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:12 UTC