Re: HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) - comments

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:46:43 +0200, Marta Pawlowska  
<m.pawlowska@samsung.com> wrote:

> Hello Charles,
> Thank you for considering my comments :) Please find my suggestions to  
> change examples attached.
>
> What do you think?

OK, I see what you mean. Yep, I'll happily do something like that...

cheers, and thanks again

Chaals

> Best regards,
> Marta
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathie Nevile [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:38 PM
> To: public-html-a11y@w3.org; Marta Pawlowska
> Subject: Re: HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) - comments
>
> Hello Marta,
>
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:46:46 +0200, Marta Pawlowska
> <m.pawlowska@samsung.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm quite new in this area however I would like to add my 2 censt to
>> HTML5 Image longdesc.
>
> Thank you for your comments. I have tried to answer them inline.
>
> I am preparing an editor's draft for tomorrow which will include changes
> based on your suggestions - I'll announce it to the list when it is
> available.
>
>> My comments added by section name:
>>
>> 1.       Abstract
>>
>> Can we add here information about general use case in one sentence? I
>> would prefer to have it here also as it is hard to understand the
>> purpose of this document in comparison to HTML4 on the first glance.
>
> OK. I added a note to the upcoming editor's draft that says longdesc is
> based on the HTML 4 attribute.
>
> (The history is that it was in HTML4, it was taken out of HTML5, and this
> extension more or less reinstates it.)
>
>> 2.       Introduction
>>
>> It would be nice to add information why we need it and why HTML4
>> longdesc is not enough.
>
> Well, HTML4 longdesc is not in HTML5. Unless you use this extensions
> specification.
>
>> Also it would be nice to explain why using URL  instead of
>> description is better.
>
> OK.
>
>> Can we also change example a bit so it would look more clear? (I mean
>> formatting)
>
> Do you have a concrete suggestion for how to improve it? I am happy to
> make things better, but sometimes I am shortof ideas or design skill...
>
>> 3.       Use Cases and Requirements
>>
>> Can we rephrase this part? i.e. like this:
>>
>> "There are many ways users can successfully interact with visual content
>> even if they cannot see, or see well. (..)"
>
> I actually put "There are many ways users can successfully interact with
> images even if they cannot see, or see well."
>
> (You're right, the original was pretty twisted...)
>
>> 4.       Use cases
>>
>> Generally I believe we should use "shorter" sentences in Use Cases as in
>> some sections like "Linking to a description included within a page" it
>> is hard to read and understand the purpose ( a sentence that takes 3
>> lines).
>
> I'll have another look tonight. A 3-line sentence is too long.
>
> [Various rephrasing suggestions]
>
> In general I have rephrased things along the lines you suggested.
>
>> 6.2.1           Attribute
>>
>> 6.2.1.1    longdesc of type DOMString
>>
>> Can we rephrase this? part i.e. like this:
>>
>> "It represents a hyperlink to a detailed description of the parent image
>> represented by HTMLImageElement."
>
> I didn't do this. As a general rule, I don't use verbs in the passive
> voice.
>
>> Examples - can we reformat it to look more clear?
>
> Again - sure, but I would appreciate some ideas on what would make it  
> look
> clearer.
>
>> I hope that you will find it helpful.
>
> Indeed. Thank you Marta for your comments.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Friday, 21 June 2013 18:41:43 UTC