Re: Call for Consensus (CFC) to move forward the HTML5 Image Description Extension spec for publication (FPWD)

With my chair hat off...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:13:56 +0100, David MacDonald  
<david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>
> I’m confused as to why there would be a longdesc on an example of a  
> decorative image...WCAG failure F39 says:
>
>
> “This technique describes a failure condition for images that should be  
> ignored by assistive technologies. A text alternative for an >image  
> should convey the meaning of the image. When an image is used for  
> decoration, spacing or other purpose that is not part of the >meaningful  
> content in the page then **the image has no meaning and should be  
> ignored by assistive technologies.**”

I suggest that WCAG techniques is incorrect here, by being incomplete. The  
image doesn't have any special meaning that is otherwise missing from the  
page, and can be ignored by assistive technologies *in the ordinary  
reading of the page*.

The counter-argument would essentially say that it is wrong to have  
descriptions available for images which are not semantically significant  
to the page. I don't think that argument is sustainable.

"Semantically meaningful" is really a continuum, not a boolean condition.  
What e.g. screenreaders do is basically an approximation, effectively  
deciding what the most useful trade-off is. Longdesc is explicitly  
designed for situations where that would normally mean not providing the  
description, but making it available for the case when a user wants to go  
to the extra trouble of reading it. It is a basic assumption that this  
would not be the most common case.


>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/F39

cheers

Chaals

>
>
> Cheers
>
> David MacDonald
>
>
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
>  Adapting the web to all users
>
>            Including those with disabilities
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
>
>
> From: Geoff Freed [mailto:geoff_freed@wgbh.org]Sent: November-20-12  
> 11:54 AM
> To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
> Cc: Steve Faulkner
> Subject: Re: Call for Consensus (CFC) to move forward the HTML5 Image  
> Description Extension spec for publication (FPWD)
>
>
>
> No objections here; I think it's ready to go to the next stage.
>
>
> Geoff Freed
>
> WGBH/NCAM
>
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 7:15 AM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> We are calling for consensus on the HTML5 Image Description Extension  
> specification [1]
>
>
> We have asked for and received feedback on the specification from task  
> force members.
>
>
> The question we are asking task force members:
>
>
> Is this specification ready to be put forward by the Task force to the  
> HTML WG and the Protocols and Formats WG for consideration for  
> >publication as a first public working draft (FPWD)?
>
>
> Please note: As a Working Draft publication, the document does not need  
> not be complete, to meet all technical requirements, or to have  
> >consensus on the contents.
>
>
> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive  
> responses are encouraged.
> If there are no objections by Thursday, November 29th (Close of  
> business, or 23:59 Boston Time), this resolution will carry.
>
> Other considerations to note:
>
> - As a First Public Working Draft, this publication will trigger patent  
> policy review.
>
>
>
> [1]  
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/4893614e89f2/longdesc1/longdesc.html
>
>
>
> On behalf of the task force chairs:
>
>
> Janina, Steve and Chaals
>
>
>
>
> --with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
>



-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com