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

I agree with Leonie regarding the benefit of  idea a #id longdesc reference on the same page...I actually like it better than aria-describedby because it wouldn’t start reading automatically like describedby... however, I think we need to introduce it as a new functionality for longdesc rather than an existing one.

 

Regarding LONGDESC and null ALT text on an image, I discourage that emphatically... unless this group wants to lobby WCAG and make a case to remove F39... and try to convince them that there would be a reason to make screen readers stop on a null alt image and say “press INSERT ENTER to read long description”... and try to get them to see any value in muddying the waters regarding what null alt text is to be used for.

 

I think it’s important to come to a consensus between us and WCAG and in fact every other existing W3C spec. Let’s not go out on our own... unless there is some really well thought out reason for it (such as #id references for longdesc), and then if we are right, we can try to convince others, such as WCAG, of the value of our position. 

 

I just don’t think the null alt longdesc combination should be one of those situations. 

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities

 <http://www.can-adapt.com/> www.Can-Adapt.com

 

From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.co.uk] 
Sent: November-22-12 4:49 AM
To: 'Charles McCathie Nevile'; '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)

 

Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

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

 

I think the notion of a #id longdesc value, and the use of longdesc in combination with a null alt, are both ideas worth exploring whilst we’re looking at this extension.

 

More discussion is inevitable and it’ll be useful, but personally I’d take it from a position of wanting to include those features rather than exclude them.

 

 

Léonie.

 

From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] 
Sent: 21 November 2012 21:41
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)

 

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 <http://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