RE: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> >
> > If that were only true Josh.  We've had a "solution" for this issue
> for over
> > a decade in the previous Specification, and have not seen any
> implementation
> > in browsers worth noting.
> 
> Browser vendors generally make implementation decisions based on
> whether a feature seems likely to benefit end-users and content
> authors, not based on what is in what spec. Vendors are open to
> persuasion, of course.

Yep. See my response to Silvia.


> > It comes down to 2 paths forward as I see it: one is that we mandate
> > something that browsers will continue ignore, or we actively engage
> them in
> > crafting the solution, one that meets all of the user requirements.
> >
> > I think it's fairly obvious which I hope will be chosen - the "which
> group
> > dictates to the other" approach is not working. (I will also note in
> passing
> > that active listening is a requirement on BOTH parts)
> 
> I think you are right about that. Unfortunately, the conversation still
> seems to be on mandate-or-no-mandate rather than engagement in crafting
> a solution.

I will be so bold as to suggest that the sticking point is over the
obsolescence of @longdesc. Remove the threat of that, and then the
discussion can turn to getting the real work done - members of the larger
accessibility community are both trying and appear open to that effort. In
my opinion however, until that irritant is addressed the dialog remains
strained.

To end a stare-down, somebody has to blink, it's that simple. If the
engineers truly want to work on a "better" solution, leave the "less better"
one in place until you have the better one solved. This has been the core of
the argument since day one.

JF

Received on Monday, 17 September 2012 23:33:06 UTC