- From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:34:59 -0700
- To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Sep 23, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > (in my initial reply to your proposals I made a poorly-explained comment > about using the technique under 500% zoom plus high-contrast. This is in > part an attempt to provide the explanation I should have given at the > time). Thanks. > On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 03:21:10 +0200, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote: >> On Sep 17, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Gez Lemon <g.lemon@webprofession.com> wrote: >>> [longdesc] is better supported and more reliable than no solution at all for >>> providing a long description for complex images. >> >> Here are six examples. Three of which work today. One which works in all implementations, which is more than can be said of longdesc. >> >> http://cookiecrook.com/longdesc/ > > I presume the one you claim works today is > http://cookiecrook.com/longdesc/iframe/ > > As I understand this teachnique, (and from my own testing) it only works > for people who are browsing with images off, or using a screen reader. That's the target audience, yes. > While this describes a well-known accessibility scenario, if those are > indeed requirements the technique also fails in some very common > accessibility scenarios. > > In particular, many people with visual disabilities who would benefit from > long descriptions do not turn images off. And thanks to the broad support > in modern systems for things like magnification and high contrast such > people are likely to have a setup that meets their needs better than > assuming a screenreader is somehow the answer to visual accessibility > problems. > > I may well have misunderstood something important, or you may not yet have > explained it because you thought it was obvious. But if my understanding > is correct, then I think there are some serious problems with the iframe > solution proposed. > > Because there is no "strong association" that software could rely on (as > most screenreaders do for longdesc), this effectively shifts the burden of > orienting the user from a handful of software developers - to all authors. > There is a reason why the proposed statement of principles for designing > HTML suggests that should be avoided. If your example doesn't work with > images turned on, I suggest it as evidence that this approach isn't likely > to be a great improvement on what we have today even given that we manage > to get faster adoption among users than would be possible for longdesc. These are fair points, but I still believe the negatives are outweighed by the positive that implementation support for iframe is universal. James
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 16:35:42 UTC