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

Chair hat off...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:58:49 +0100, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:
>
> “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.”
>
>
> Semantic meaning is only part of the overall experience. There is a time  
> and a place for emotion rich images too, and we shouldn’t make choices  
> about whether >screen reader users would (or wouldn’t) like to  
> experience them [1].
>
>
> Using longdesc as a mechanism for providing that information seems like  
> a good solution. It makes it available for those that want it, >without  
> hindering those that don’t.

RIght.

>
> The only problem is that (at present) an empty alt makes the image  
> invisible to screen readers, taking access to the longdesc with it.

Also right :(

>
> It’s possible the AT vendors will respond to this, but in the meantime  
> we might want to think about how we reference this in the extension?

Yeah. It might be best to remove the example for now, and have the  
discussion...

cheers

>
> Léonie.
>
>
> [1] http://tink.co.uk/2011/06/text-descriptions-emotion-rich-images/
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]Sent: 21  
> November 2012 01:54
> To: 'Geoff Freed'; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'; David MacDonald
> Cc: 'Steve Faulkner'
> Subject: 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



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