- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:38:05 +0100
- To: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <op.wo99hrkty3oazb@chaals.local>
I support all the proposals (surprise :) ). cheers Chaals (speaking as Yandex rep, not as co-thingy) On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:54:27 +0100, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, > > the taskforce chairs have gone through the feedback from the CFC [4] to > pass the image description spec along for publication. We are now > proposing a >dispositive summary of comments received on our CfC [4] for > Objections to Publish an FPWD for long textual descriptions on images > and are asking the group to >consider the following resolutions to the > issues raised. >> Silence will be considered assent, but positive responses by [Friday >> 20th December, 23:59 EST] are preferred: > >> >> Technical issues: > >> Aside from the expressions of support, the accessibility taskforce has >> received one clear objection and several questions about the longdesc >> proposal. A new >draft has been published addressing the bugs >> raised[1]. The following resolutions are proposed for points raised >> other than those considered to be purely issues >of process: > David McDonald stated that an example of an image with null alt text and > a longdesc would contradict a WCAG technique. A bug was raised 20048 [1] > to >track this. In the latest draft, the example has been removed. > >> a. Resolution - Resolved fixed: Remove the example. > >> 2. David also stated that longdesc URLs which were internal references >> to the page were a new feature and didn't work. Subsequent replies >> showed >that they were part of the HTML 4 definition, that they had >> been implemented that way in pwWebspeak, Opera, iCab, the Firefox >> extension, and there >were examples in the wild. However, current >> implementations using IE/JAWS, and some others do not handle this >> effectively. > >> a. Proposed Resolution – Resolved Invalid: Keep the HTML 4 definition. >> State that implementations which do not recognise internal page >> >references are incorrect. > > 3. James Craig and Matt Turvey both stated that an image description > should be available to all users. Nobody disagreed, and several people > agreed. A >bug was raised[3] to track this. The proposed specification > already requires user agents to enable users, as well as assistive > technologies, to access the >functionality. The Opera, iCab and Firefox > implementations all do this. The NVDA implementation was held back with > the explicitly stated hope that the >functionality would be made > available to all users through the browser. >> a. Proposed Resolution – Resolved Fixed: The recent update to the >> specification addresses this by more clearly stating that the >> requirements >apply to all users, not just assistive technology. > >> b. If this is still unclear in the specification, please provide >> specific editorial suggestions to improve it. > >> > >> 4. Matt Turvey suggested that the use case of making it >> straightforward to teach the use of description mechanism be removed, >> because it could be >interepreted in a way that casts a bad light. > >> a. Proposed Resolution- Resolved Won’t Fix: The use case has value and >> should be retained. > >> b. If there are ways to reduce the risk of wilful misinterpretation, >> please provide specific editorial suggestions to improve it. > >> > >> 5. Matt Turvey stated that poor implementation of longdesc means that >> it is more harmful than beneficial. Various responses have been made >> that while >poor implementation is a known issue, the harm it may do is >> outweighed by the benefit of good implementations that exist. > >> a. Proposed Resolution: Resolved Won’t Fix: This is a point in >> contention, and the case that longdesc is harmful has clearly not been >> proven. > >> > >> 6. Matt Turvey suggested that the specification could be changed to >> state that it should only be used in cases where the audience was >> controlled. > >> a. Proposed Resolution- Resolved Won’t Fix: This restriction is >> unnecessary, and counter-productive. It should not be added to the >> >specification. > >> > >> 7. Matt Turvey, James Craig, and Silvia Pfeiffer suggested the >> specification could be changed to state that longdesc is obsolete. > >> a. Proposed Resolution- Resolved Won’t Fix: In a specification of a >> single feature, this makes no sense. The question might be relevant to >> the >HTML Working Group if it wants to consider incorporating this >> extension directly into the HTML specification. > >> > >> Issues of process: > >> The following resolutions are proposed for points raised [5] considered >> to be purely issues of process: > >> 1. Matt Turvey suggested we haven't addressed the objections from the >> original HTMLWG poll and decision. > a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: The decision was overturned. The > question of whether a draft makes a reasonable FPWD does not depend on > it meeting >all technical objections, and therefore it is reasonable to > file a bug for any given technical issue (as has been done in some cases > already) and proceed >with publishing. > > 2. Matt Turvey suggested None of the use cases (except Teaching > Accessible Development)appear to specifically require longdesc. > a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: Use cases do not require a specific > solution. They lead to requirements, and we standardise something that > meets those >requirements. > > 3. Matt Turvey suggested that the use cases can already be better > addressed with existing, widely supported techniques. > >> a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: It is clearly possible to meet any >> given use case's requirements, and even a subset of all of them, with >> >many kinds of solutions. There is no reason an alternative cannot be >> proposed as an extension specification. We are not discussing other >> >proposals, but whether it is reasonable to publish a draft of one >> proposed solution. > >> 4. Matt Turvey suggested that if there is a use case that specifically >> requires programmatic determinability of a long description link as >> distinct from a >normal link, but is not satisfied by using >> rel=longdesc, this should be included. > >> a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: Use cases should identify problems >> that need solutions, not be reverse-engineered from solutions (nor >> from >hypothetical proposals for solutions). There is no reason an >> alternative cannot be proposed as an extension specification. We are >> not >discussing other proposals, but whether it is reasonable to >> publish a draft of one proposed solution. > >> 5. Matt Turvey suggested that as Geoff Freed is currently compiling >> evidence for the Task Force that some educational publishers might be >> about to >start using longdesc. It may be worth waiting until we have >> that evidence available. > >> a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: If this were the only evidence, or >> critical for a decision on whether to proceed to Recommendation, it >> might >be worth waiting for it. Since this CfC is about developing the >> specification as a Working Draft, it is unnecessary to wait for all >> possible >knowledge before moving forward. > >> 6. Matt Turvey suggested that as Sam Ruby previously suggested a >> course correction may be required on longdesc, citing the absence of >> correct >longdesc usage in Steve Faulkner's survey of the top 10,000 >> website home pages. Is this spec the kind of course correction that >> will convince >HTMLWG members to support longdesc? > >> a. Proposed resolution - Invalid: It's difficult to guess if Sam is >> right. What Sam Ruby suggested is not a process requirement, and as >> >understood he didn't even suggest this was the chairs' opinion, just >> an idea of his own. Therefore not publishing a draft of the spec seems >> >unlikely to help determine the answer to Matts question. > >> > > References: > >> [1] >> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/1f251fcbe363/longdesc1/longdesc.html > >> [2] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20048 > >> [3] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20117 > >> [4] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0091.html > >> [5] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Nov/0152.html > >> > >> > >> On behalf of the task force chairs: > >> > >> Janina, Steve and Chaals > >> > >> > >> -- > >> with regards > >> > >> Steve Faulkner > >> Technical Director - TPG > >> > > > > -- Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2012 01:38:39 UTC