- From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 23:51:20 +0200
- To: laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com
- Cc: cyns@microsoft.com, jbrewer@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, gez.lemon@gmail.com
------- Original message ------- > From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> > To: cyns@microsoft.com > Cc: jbrewer@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org, gez.lemon@gmail.com > Sent: 17/5/'11, 22:57 > > Hi Cynthia, > >> On the specific proposal, I have 3 questions: > > It is a shame that you didn't ask these questions earlier as this > verbiage has been in the Change Proposal since January 31 [1]. I > really wish you had participated in the earlier discussions. > > The first two questions: > > "I don't think aria-describedby is a suitable replacement. If I > understand correctly, aria-describedby will annotate text in the > target id referenced by the idref, meaning that AT users won't be able > to control how they interact with the long description. As, by > definition, this is going to be long, it doesn't seem a good solution. > Something that moves the user's reading cursor to the longer > description (either on the same page or in a different page) where the > user can control how they read the long description would be a better > solution." - Gez Lemon > http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq2 Ah yeah, now I remember. Being a link, it is optional whether the user opens it, whereas current AT just start to read the @aria-describedby resource without waiting for the user's blessing. Leif > As for the last question, in addition to what Cliff said, I experience > that myself with developers. It is sad but true. > > Best Regards, > Laura > > -- > Laura L. Carlson > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/InstateLongd > esc&direction=prev&oldid=9086 > > On 5/17/11, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Sorry I couldn't make the call. As I've said before, I can live with >> either >> decision on longdesc, as I think we can have a path forward with ARIA >> describedby and describedat. >> >> On the specific proposal, I have 3 questions: >> 1) >> I don't really understand this: >> "aria-describedby will annotate text in the target id referenced by the >> idref. This means assistive technology users would not be able to >> control >> how they interact with the long description (as they can with longdesc). >> It >> is read aloud without any user intervention, forcing the longer >> description >> on the user whether they want it or not." >> >> What is meant by annotate? Why does this make it impossible for AT >> developers to create UI for their users that allows them to control how >> they >> interact with aria-describedby? Note that I'm not talking about current >> AT >> behavior. If this argument is about current AT behavior, then it is a >> very >> weak argument, as AT can be changed just like any other software. If >> the >> argument is about it being impossible to create this UI, then the reason >> for >> that needs to be called out more explicitly. >> >> 2) "As, by definition, a long description is in fact long, >> aria-describedby >> is not good solution for a longdesc." >> Because....? >> >> 3) "It is unlikely that many content creators or developers will learn >> ARIA >> (something not native HTML). They already feel like they've learned far >> more >> than they should have to know under their job description. And in many >> cases, their supervisors agree. (reference Cliff Tyllick)" >> >> Do you really want to go there? The PF believes pretty strongly in the >> value of ARIA. While I'm neutral on longdesc, I would feel very >> uncomfortable supporting a document with this statement in it. I >> suspect >> there are other members of the TF that would agree. It's also an appeal >> to >> authority (one view), or what some guy on a blog thinks (another view), >> neither of which carries much weight in this WG. It seems unlikely to >> help >> your case, and likely to harm other work. >> >> >From a developer standpoint, aria-describedby and longdesc are the >> same. >> They are both extra attributes you have to add. They're the same amount >> of >> work. A WYSWYG tool that supports one can be modified to support the >> other. >> I can even think of ways to do it that would be transparent to the >> user. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Judy Brewer >> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:55 AM >> To: public-html-a11y@w3.org >> Subject: Call for consensus on longdesc change proposal >> >> Dear HTML A11Y TF: >> >> Please read the longdesc change proposal, which Laura has agreed is now >> stable: >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc >> >> A lot of work has been done on this; thanks to Laura and others that >> have >> contributed. >> >> We will discuss consensus on this in the Text Alternatives Sub-Group >> call on >> Monday 16 May. >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011May/0359.html >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Judy >> >> -- >> Judy Brewer +1.617.258.9741 http://www.w3.org/WAI >> Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), World Wide Web Consortium >> (W3C) MIT/CSAIL Building 32-G526 >> 32 Vassar Street >> Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA > > > -- > Laura L. Carlson >
Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 21:52:08 UTC