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

Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: ARIA-DescribedAT & Longdesc

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:59:12 +0200
To: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <op.wbyfgykzwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:56:57 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> Colleagues:
>> On 29 March last the HTML-A11Y Task Force teleconference meeting
>> reached consensus as follows:
>> RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force confirms that ARIA-DescribedAT will
>> not be ready for HTML 5 in HTML 5's currently published timeframe, and
>> therefore reaffirms its support of Laura's authored CP to reinstate
>> longdesc (Issue-30).
>> The TF resolution, together with minutes of the discussion leading up to
>> it, is logged at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2012/03/29-html-a11y-minutes.html#item03
>> As usual, if there is objection to this consensus position, please
>> respond by replying to this message no later than close of business,
>> Boston Time, on Monday 2 April.
> I have two comments on this:
> Laura's change proposal [1] asks for @longdesc to be reinstated for
> <img> elements.
> @longdesc is currently an obsolete attribute [2] for both, <img> and  
> <iframe>.
> First a question: we are not asking @longdesc to be reinstated for
> <iframe>, or are we? And: why not?

We are not. Because when I wrote the original change proposal for ISSUE-30  
(and indeed, when I raised the issue, oh so long ago), I didn't think it  
would be a multi-year project for such a simple piece of missing  
functionality to be added (back), and conceived it as a simple step on  
what I did expect to be a reasonably difficult path of getting HTML5 to  
support accessibility to the level that the Web as a whole did 5 years ago.

> Secondly my opinion: if we are not planning to introduce a
> @aria-describedAt attribute into HTML5, we should drop issues 194 [3]
> and 203 [4] and defer them to HTML.next. I don't want to see the
> problem of long descriptions / transcripts solved for <video> elements
> in isolation from other elements. It would make more sense to have a
> common solution on all elements.

At this stage I think the situation is pretty sad, and while I'm prepared  
to work on anything that makes sense, I am unhappy enough to accept a  
half-arsed hand-me-down as better than nothing. :( But in principle I  
still agree with you, because it seems that putting in accessibility  
solutions we haven't thought through really incredibly carefully isn't a  
good idea (witness the small editorial mistakes that cost accesskey a  
decade, or the apparently spur-of-the-moment "solution" to hit testing on  



Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 22:59:47 UTC

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