Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: ARIA-DescribedAT & Longdesc

Hi Benjamin,

> it seems unlikely we will see additional implementations before
> the WG tries to decide Issue 30.

The majority of vendors are not going to implement an obsolete
attribute. This is one of the repercussions of the HTML Chairs delay
in processing Issue-30. Once longdesc is fully conforming, vendor bugs
can be pursued.

>  - Surface test-based implementation status warnings (for @longdesc
>  *and* other features like <details>) in HTML authoring guidance and
> in conformance checkers.

That would be fair if all other HTML and ARIA features have
implementation status warnings too. Steve has done quite a bit of
testing. Maybe base it on that?

> It is possible that open advocacy of these positions might improve
> the chances of our Issue 30 proposal.

I support efforts that will improve the chances.

Best Regards,
Laura
--
Laura L. Carlson

On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 4:38 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> Colleagues:
>>
>> On 29 March last the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference meeting
>> reached consensus as follows:
>>
>> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force confirms that ARIA-DescribedAT will
>> not be ready for HTML 5 in HTML 5's currently published timeframe, and
>> therefore reaffirms its support of Laura's authored CP to reinstate
>> longdesc (Issue-30).
>>
>> The TF resolution, together with minutes of the discussion leading up to
>> it, is logged at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#item03
>>
>> As usual, if there is objection to this consensus position, please
>> respond by replying to this message no later than close of business,
>> Boston Time, on Monday 2 April.
>
> I object to this position.
>
> >From what I've seen so far, it is not realistic to expect a future
> attribute with semantics like @longdesc to address its use cases so
> much better that it justifies deprecating @longdesc. Therefore the
> HTML WG should exclude such expectations from its consideration of
> whether to make @longdesc conforming. The consensus position suggests
> a different timeline for such expectations rather than expressing
> their fundamental unrealism. As not everyone who thinks we should meet
> @longdesc's use cases necessarily agrees we must meet them within
> HTML5's timeframe, the consensus position would continue to damage the
> fair consideration of our proposal for Issue 30.
>
> I believe assessments of the likelihood of user agents implementing
> @longdesc should (and will) enter into HTML WG's consideration of
> whether to recommend @longdesc to authors. I think Opera's inclusion
> of a long description context menu item during HTML5's development
> period was a positive step here, but it seems unlikely we will see
> additional implementations before the WG tries to decide Issue 30. The
> response from other user agent vendors has been lukewarm at best.
> Recommending without caveat that authors produce long descriptions
> that lots of users cannot easily access could be a dereliction of
> duty. So if we want to push to make @longdesc conforming, we should
> arguably also be pushing to:
>
>   - Suggest in authoring guidance that authors make long descriptions
> discoverable using visible webpage elements.
>
>   - Surface test-based implementation status warnings (for @longdesc
> *and* other features like <details>) in HTML authoring guidance and in
> conformance checkers.
>
> It is possible that open advocacy of these positions might improve the
> chances of our Issue 30 proposal.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 11:24:52 UTC