- From: Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:39:16 -0400
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi again, On 2010-08-13, at 12:17 AM, John Foliot wrote: > Which begs another question: what 'penalty' will authors encounter if they > continue to use @longdesc in their HTML5 documents? If the answer is none > (save the inability to display a non-existent "conformance badge"), then I > know what I will continue to advocate and teach (users over authors, > authors over implementers, implementers over technical purity). I feel the exact same way. As someone who is in charge of offering accessibility training and consulting services to the large majority of government employees in the province of Quebec, I will definitely continue to advocate for @longdesc even if HTML5 rules it out. I've been a faithful promoter of compliancy and valid code for the past 10 years, but if I have to throw that aside in order to ensure end users can still benefit from a relevant accessibility feature, then so be it. I'm pretty sure I will not be the only one and at the end of the day, I can live with an HTML error such as this one. I think what we've done with HTML5 is great. I think the language is definitely worth using. But I can learn to live with one page not validating once in a while if it means providing a much needed structured description to an otherwise non-textual complex content. Users over authors, authors over implementers, implementers over technical purity. So totally true. That, my friends, is real pragmatism. -- Denis Boudreau http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 14:39:48 UTC