W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 03:21:33 +0100
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120309032133252912.7046fe21@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Laura Carlson, Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:03:33 -0600:

>> Not 'ahead'. Only as a third or fourth CP - alongside the nochange and
>> Laura's CP etc.
>  [snip]
>> That an 'obsolete but conforming' CP - or any other CP - materializes,
>> would not inflict on that. It would only mean that yet another CP would
>> be heard, together with the current ones.
> Sam has already stated that the Chairs want TWO proposals not THREE
> for the Issue 30 survey. He said "Surveys work best when there are
> exactly two options to chose from."  It was their rationale for
> splitting off Jonas' proposal into a separate issue.

OK. Good. But there is also the option of reshaping the one proposal we 
have - make it ask for 'obsolete but conforming' status because we need 
time to 'properly deprecate it'.

My main goal is that @longdesc becomes conforming. It does not need to 
be both obsolete and conforming. But if it has to become obsoleted in 
order to become conforming, then I am willing to swallow that pill.

So, we should try to ask ourselves the tough question about what is 
most likely to succeed. And, part of that, we cannot avoid thinking 
about 'what next': A global @longdesc, or a global @describedat? Or 
both? I think we have to choose: Only one of them is going to be a 
global attribute.

I think this question is also matter of do we believe in accessibility 
APIs? Or do we believe in so called 'native' accessibility features? In 
that regard, while @longdesc is a simple thing, it has numerous times 
be implemented and used the the wrong way. It might be best to move to 
APIs ...

I don't know if your CP needs to change. The main point is probably 
that we signal that we need more time to 'properly deprecate' it. But 
in that regard, I *do* wonder whether Sam's question have enough 
answers in your CP: Who needs more time?How much more time? What are 
the impact of not getting that time? 

Thus, I think that an *answer* to Silvia's questions about *when* PF 
are going to start the work with ARIA 1.1, could be relevant to include 
in the CP: 
Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 02:22:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:05 UTC