- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:49:20 -0700
- To: "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
David Singer wrote: > > So your thesis is that we should stick with a poor solution, that works > only in controlled environments (not the public internet), and with a > limited number of UAs, not all, and for whcih the situation is not > improving nor likely to, rather than do better? > > "I'm sorry, I cannot give you a car because you already have a broken > bicycle." Pshaw, I say, I and many others have much higher > aspirations. Then please, bring forward a better way. One that addresses all of the user requirements that have been outlined in infinite detail (http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/UseCases). One that is easy for content creators to implement and that provides real solutions that *all* users can use. This needs to be a technical solution, not a convoluted series of possible authoring solutions. What we have today with the obsolesce of longdesc is more like "I'm sorry, I cannot give you a car, plus we're going to take away your broken bicycle, and you can walk or stay put - we don't have the solution to your problem today". Besides, it's not so much that the bike is broken, but that there are very few good bike-paths to use. > > > > With due respect, that wholly depends on how you measure support and > > reliability. > > > > A success is a success no matter how you measure it; indeed, given a > careful measurement of limited spaces on both the UA and content side, > yes, there are good patches. I do not think that is not good enough. > So, if "A success is a success no matter how you measure it", then by your own criteria @longdesc has had some successes, and with some effort we can build upon those successes. The current proposed alternative is to ignore those successes, start fresh with a possible something that has zero support today, and hope and pray that it won't be overly disruptive? I do not think that is good enough. Respectfully, JF
Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 22:49:54 UTC