- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:17:34 +0100
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, LĂ©onie Watson <lwatson@nomensa.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Laura Carlson, Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:06:24 -0500: >> Could we expand your CP - now > > I am open updating the CP if: > > 1. The accessibility task force agrees and comes to consensus > that it is the best way to help successfully reinstate longdesc into HTML; and > 2. If someone volunteers to draft solid use cases; and > 3. If someone volunteers to draft additions for the spec text and > those additions obtain task force consensus. > > So for number one, Silvia, Leonie, Janina and other task force > members, would you support expanding longdesc? And if so under what > circumstances? <img>, <table>, global? What is the scope? > If this all happens, I will be delighted to update the Change Proposal. Laura, and all, I hope the following doesn't break your conditions: Re 1: To limit @longdesc to only that single element that *defaults* to role 'img', makes the credibility of the current CP lower: It is less consistent. To allow @longdesc on any element that takes role 'img' thus should increase the chances of the CP. Q: Could we, before anything else, reach consensus on 1. Allowing longdesc for any role 'img' element? 2. That this increase the CP's credibility? Re 2: We don't need new usecases for role=img elements: At least from an A11Y API point of view, there is no difference between <img alt=text > and <p role=img aria-label=text >. So, OK we could still offer such use case, but they could be boilerplate copies of the CP's current use cases. Q: Do we agree that extending longdesc to any element of role=img 1. Does not require that we write new use cases that, on a fundamental level, differ from what we have now? 2. That we, anyhow, should demonstrate how to use longdesc on images such as ASCII art, <object role=img> and <div role=img><svg/></div> ? Re 3. Spec text: I am willing to go through the current texts - I could work on a separate copy - to update it so that it consistently covers any element of role 'img'. Q: Do we agree that limiting @longdesc to elements of role 'img', would significantly lower the extra work? Regarding 'global': By agreeing on the above points, we have already covered <table role=img longdesc=l>. But to also extend longdesc to <table>, in general, regardless of the role the table, is going to cause a good deal work and discussion. E.g. it could make the semantics of @longdesc diffuse and unclear. We could of course discuss it. But please, let us agree/disagree about the lowest fruit first: role=img. At next level, we could try to agree that 'application' and 'document' needs @longdes. This, too, would include <table>. As well as <video> and <audio> - with or without role=application. However, even to allow longdesc for role 'application' and role 'document', is probably going to require a some debate. For instance: Should we - similar to @title - give separate meaning to @longdesc, depending on which elemetn it is used on? Consider <video>: Should longdesc then descript the poster image? Or the entire video? Or ... For that reason, I - once again - strongly suggest that we verify that we agree about allowing @longdesc for elements of role='img' before looking at the other options. Agreeing on role=img first, should increase the chances on agreeing about the rest. -- Leif Halvard Silli
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2012 18:18:13 UTC