- From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:48:48 -0400
- To: public-html-a11y@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Shawn Henry" <shawn@w3.org>
- Cc: "Mark Sadecki" <mark@w3.org>
Dear Shawn and EOWG, please find below our detailed replies, but in summary we have accepted all your comments and they are incorporated into our latest draft at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html which we hope to make a Candidate Recommendation. We hope the changes we have made satisfy your outstanding comments. Thank you for your efforts and patience - we feel the end results has been a better document. On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote: > Dear Chaals and TF, > > Thank you for your response. Here are replies on a few points: > >>> * Introduction: Provide a little context at the beginning, briefly >>> explaining what long descriptions are. For suggested wording, see >>> the Image concepts page <http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/> >>> (note the lower sections have "Why is this important" and "How to >>> make images accessible") and Complex >>> images<http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex>. >> >> We will add more information in the introduction as suggested. >> However the pages you suggested do not appear stable enough to be a >> reference in this document, so we will not link specifically to >> them. > > Correct, the pages are not stable enough to be referenced in the > document -- indeed we will be editing them soon. We did not intend to > suggest that they be referenced; we only pointed to them for ideas for > wording in the Introduction. > > On 21 January we checked again for new Introduction wording at > <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html> > and do not see it yet. Please inform us when the Introduction wording is > ready for us to review in reply to this comment. We have now done this. >>> *Suggested edit to the paragraph under Use Cases and Requirements >>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>: "Text alternatives are >>> required so that users can successfully understand and interact >>> with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute >>> is designed to contain a short description. This is sufficient for >>> most images, and should provide enough information to ensure that >>> users understand the image's purpose. Some images contain more >>> information than can effectively be provided in a short >>> description. The longdesc attribute is designed for longer >>> descriptions to meet use cases such as the following." — although, >>> some of this information may be better in the Introduction per >>> previous comment... >> >> Whether an image needs a long description can depend on context as >> well as the image itself. Alt is designed to provide a functional >> replacement text, not a short description. In many cases text >> alternatives are not necessary to support interaction. We therefore >> do not propose to adopt this edit. > > EOWG is uncomfortable with the first paragraph at > <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>. For example, "everyday work" > seems to make light of the importance of text equivalents in all cases; > "information to replace an image" may not be understood; "often this is > more helpful than a detailed description of every image" seems a > tangential comment rather than a key point. > > We provided a suggested edit to show the flavor of what we think the > paragraph should say; however, we are fine with you changing our > suggested edit. Here is another suggestion that hopefully addresses your > concerns: > "Text alternatives for images enable people who cannot see to get the > information that is provided in images. The alt attribute is designed to > contain short functionally equivalent text, either the function of the > image or a short description, based on the context. For many images, > short alt is sufficient for users to get the information they need about > the image. For some images and contexts, users need more detailed > information from the image. The longdesc attribute is designed as a > means to provide this detailed information, such as in the following use > cases." We have taken this as a base, and hope the result is satisfactory. > We hope that between the two suggestions you can see what we think are > the importance points to get across here and how it has a very different > flavor than what is in the draft -- and we *welcome for you to edit our > suggestions*. > > Also note the related comment about the Introduction -- Probably this > information is best in the Introduction and then the Use Cases section > needs only a simple sentence to introduce it. Indeed, thank you for the suggestion. We did that. >>> * Current wording: "This document does not define the term >>> "accessible" nor accessibility, but uses them with the sense they >>> have in [WCAG]" Change reference from WCAG to Introduction to Web >>> Accessibility <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility> then can >>> say more directly: "This document does not define the terms >>> "accessible" or "accessibility"; it uses them as explained in >>> Introduction to Web Accessibility. >> >> That document referenced has no apparent stability or persistence >> policy. For a reference we prefer to use a W3C Recommendation which >> has both. > > WCAG 2.0 does not define or explain accessibility, and thus it seems a > weak reference for your point. WAI Resources such as "Introduction to > Web Accessibility" are commonly referred to in W3C specs -- WCAG itself > refers to <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php>. WAI Resources follow > the W3C URI Persistence Policy > (<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence.html>). While we provide a > changelog for many WAI Resources, we do not provide a public archive of > all previous versions of most WAI Resources. > > Please reconsider the best reference in this case, and let us know how > we can provide specific, documented assurances with regard to the > stability and persistence of "Introduction to Web Accessibility" to meet > your needs. We took a simple statement from the intro document to say what we meant. We provided a further informative link to the introductory document. > We look forward to your further reply. cheers Chaals and Mark -- Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex chaals@yandex-team.ru Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 17:49:24 UTC