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

Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:32:47 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2mtZwqCKSAJ-r+SA+0cnePaNwO8n2DmAMfQaFT6VhQeBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, HTMLAccessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > As Chaals pointed out almost 3 years ago, we can go through the whole
>> > process to emerge at the end with something that is essentially what
>> > @longdesc is today, but with a shiny new name.
>> If after such an exercise we end up exactly at the same spot where
>> @longdesc is now, then indeed there is no purpose in giving it a new
>> name. However, it is an assumption that may not hold true. Instead,
>> all it achieves is that we keep spinning in circles. Is it really that
>> important to hold on to the name?
> 2 words: backwards compatibility, so yes, keeping the name is important.

Since a lot of the content in existance for @longdesc is
non-conformant anyway, I don't understand that argument.

>> Let's just get started on redefining
>> what we want, from scratch, without any prejudice as to where we will
>> end, and see where the journey takes us. If we end up in the same
>> place and it's all achievable with @longdesc, then we can still put
>> that label back on the effort.
> I support the effort to examine user requirements, as well as HTML5's
> requirements to provide appropriate technology to support both users and
> other business & legal requirements.  I would welcome the opportunity to
> examine @longdesc to see if we  can improve and expand its usefulness, but I
> think that tossing out the existing attribute without a viable replacement
> today does significant harm and benefits no-one.

The development that I'm suggesting does not necessarily imply tossing
out @longdesc, so I don't understand that argument either.

> So rather than casting it as a blank slate, let's cast it as a period of
> refinement. I think in that light you would find wider support moving
> forward.

Learning from existing @longdesc experience is certainly good.

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 04:33:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:06 UTC