RE: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

Hi Leif,

Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@må]
> Your text was very short - 3000 chars roughly. However it would
> certainly reach 6000, when you place it in the Wiki and all references
> etc.

Still a huge economization over the current >45,000 chars (8363 words) of
the current wiki page. (And remember that the wiki page again links off to
other documents, for example Laura's completed Use Cases at - more valuable text
not taken into that numeric count.)

> Before discussing a new text, would it not be interesting to see if
> Laura could shorten her text via the suggested means - namely by moving
> stuff to sub pages ?

Almost the entire first pass text I provided was extracted directly from
the long document: it was based upon the table of contents (edited) and
used language that introduces the main sections from the current wiki
page. I think I added maybe 3 words, and edited 2 or 3 instances to change
author tense, etc. I have not sought to re-write what Laura has provided,
but rather to be a brutal copy editor.

I am open to whatever means we can determine to edit this down, but remain
convinced that the current wiki document is simply too verbose and
overwhelming - no matter how complete - for most to be able to process
efficiently. We need, IMHO, an Executive Summary version.


Sam Ruby wrote:
> What I quoted above in the top of my note is four use cases.  The first
> and the fourth are abstract and don't specifically require longdesc in
> any obvious way.  The second and third mention that longdesc is one
> possible solution.
> I haven't checked with my co-chairs, but my initial reaction is that if
> this had been the change proposal that had been submitted with the
> reopen request, the request to reopen would not have been granted.

Thanks for the feedback Sam.

This is/was a sample first pass on my part, nothing more. Laura and others
have already done a fabulous job on expanded and complete Use Cases,
located in Laura's own private research space at

They include:
* Describing a Logo
* Describing a Cartoon
* Describing Artwork
* Describing Screenshots
* Describing a Chart
* Describing a Photograph
* Describing an Email Banner
* Describing Illustrations
* Facilitating etext Image Descriptions
* Describing etext Images
* Describing a Newspaper Image

Those Use Cases, amounting to another 7,428 words, if printed out on 8.5 X
11 paper would add an additional 20+ pages to the existing 15 that the
current wiki would produce.

Thus, I will pose this question of you as a Chair: do you prefer a
complete 16,000+ word Change Proposal, or a succinct and readable 1,000 -
3,000 word Change Proposal that links to further resources, documents,
proofs and related ephemera? What do you, the other Chairs, and the
Working Group want?

I believe we all want to make this as easy as possible for all concerned
to both review and grasp.



Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 22:49:55 UTC