- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:35:43 -0400
- To: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Regrets on ALT text meeting at 1pm, work commitment. Cheers David MacDonald CanAdapt Solutions Inc. "Enabling the Web" www.Can-Adapt.com -----Original Message----- From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] Sent: July-24-12 7:49 AM To: Mathew Marquis Cc: HTML WG; Ian Jacobs; HTML Accessibility Task Force Subject: Re: Proposed adaptive image element Hi Mat, > With the above in mind I d love to discuss the next steps in working > towards a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention > of filing a bug to have this proposal officially entered into the WG > system is that our next course of action? Filing a bug is step one in the HTML Working Group decision process. http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy-v2.html With regard to accessibility two things that may be worth consideration: 1. The possibility of responsive text alternatives that could parallel the responsive images if needed. The <picture> proposal allows for different sources for images at different sizes. But authors could use different images at different sizes and not just a cropped down version of a single image. No text alternative mechanism is provided for that use case. Allowing alt on <source> could provide for that use case. Something like the following might work: <picture> <source src="mobile.jpg alt="text alternative"> <source src="medium.jpg" alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 600px"> <source src="fullsize.jpg" alt="text alternative" media="min-width: 900px"> <img src="mobile.jpg" alt="text alternative"> </picture> 2. A picture element could allow for semantic programmatically determinable in-page rich text long description, if a description element was added to the proposal: <picture> <img src="image.jpg" alt="text alternative"> <desc>structured rich text description with headings, lists, tables, etc.</desc> </picture> Best Regards, Laura On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote: > HTML WG, > > I wanted to check-in with you guys briefly on the status of the RICG s > proposal, and update you on a few recent developments with regards to > the proposed `picture` element: > > A few vendors have expressed an interest in prototyping a native > implementation of the `picture` element in the near future. With so > much discussion surrounding this topic I m concerned that there s > still a great deal left open to interpretation, even with the proposal > codified at > http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/wiki/Picture_Element_Proposal and > detailed at > http://www.w3.org/community/respimg/2012/06/18/florians-compromise/ > > Further: the Drupal team is currently discussing the inclusion of the > `picture` element in Drupal 8 core, along with the speculative > polyfill we developed here at Filament Group ( > http://drupal.org/node/1170478 ). I posted that I didn t recommend the > use of `picture` prior to a specification or native implementation ( > http://drupal.org/node/1170478#comment-6248598 ) and that they might > consider the related `div`-based script that replicates the native > behavior, for the time being. It does seem that some of the > decision-makers involved are still leaning towards the `picture` > element itself ( https://twitter.com/attiks/statuses/225636567618818048 , for example ). > > I worry that implementors and the developer community alike, having > seen a clear need and use for this element as proposed, are > considering implementing and using it preemptively. My fear is that > either party doing so before a specification has been solidified could > result in competing implementations, and broken production sites. > > With the above in mind I d love to discuss the next steps in working > towards a specification, and keep our momentum up. There was mention > of filing a bug to have this proposal officially entered into the WG > system is that our next course of action? Also, any information I > could relay back to the RICG and interested parties would be hugely appreciated. > > Thanks! > Mat Marquis -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 16:36:16 UTC