- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 05:22:33 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
On 09/20/2012 10:34 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Hello A11Y TF. This new direction opens up a possibility for two > conformance levels w.r.t longdesc use. And, inspired by Janina's > identification of longdesc as fully functional in certain restricted > corners of the web, I would therefore like to propose the following way > forward: If you will permit me to make an observation: focusing on conformance may be putting the cart before the horse. I'd recommend starting from deciding what problem you want to solve. Roy Fielding recently presented[1] one view on what longdesc is meant to be: enhancing the public record so that it better fits the needs of those with assistive technologies, without changing the visual representation for those who don't use AT. His view may or may not represent what the HTML WG or that A11y Task Force intends to pursue, but the prescribed behavior in the Instate longdesc change proposal goes well beyond what Roy described, and does so in a way that has not gotten a warm reception by those that develop a number of user agents. Define something that is likely to be universally implemented by next year, or define something that is explicitly NOT intended to be universally implemented. Or do both, perhaps on different schedules. Depending on which path you chose, different levels of validator warnings may be appropriate, or no warning at all. Things with a universal appeal and are likely to be nearly universally implemented in the near term stand a strong chance of becoming integrated into the HTML5 specification. In yesterday's A11y telecon, Janina used the normally emotionally charged term "ghetto", but did so to make a point: there actually are advantages to a "ghetto" specification. As this was near the end of the telecon she did not have a full opportunity to explain what she meant by that so I may be misunderstanding, but there is nothing wrong with intentionally pursuing a "ghetto" specification, nor is there anything wrong with intentionally pursuing integration into the HTML5 specification. You just may end up specifying different things depending on what problem you want to solve. - Sam Ruby [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0309.html
Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 09:23:05 UTC