W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2011

RE: Moving longdesc forward: Recap, updates, consensus

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:49:26 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Leif Halvard Silli'" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Cc: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <chaals@opera.com>, "'Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis'" <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, "'Geoff Freed'" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>, "'Gregory J. Rosmaita'" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Message-ID: <011b01cc0b76$af630390$0e290ab0$@edu>
Hi Leif,

Leif Halvard Silli [mailto:xn--mlform-iua@målform.no]
> 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
http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/ld.html#uc - 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

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