W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > October 2014

Re: clarification sought on publishing alt text document as a WG note

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:56:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vk8p-n9YknY_Pf8Wi5ST_0d7WipW5wmKVXMfkBmYB3v+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
>
> Since we had consensus on publishing longdesc I don't see how we could
> have consensus on a document that could be taken as implying (although it
> doesn't say) that one shouldn't use longdesc.
>
> The TF hadn't reviewed the document, I think, in light of longdesc moving
> forward.
>


-1

The TF reviewed the document 4 months ago, I consider that at that stage it
was believed that longdesc was just as much a reality then as it is today.
I am confused as to who you refer to when you refer to the TF, I am a
member as are shane,  david, charles, leonie, edward and others who the in
the last week affirmed that they want at least a heartbeat published. The
rough consensus of the TF is clear [1].

The alt doc does not and has never claimed to be a complete resource on
techniques to provide longer descriptions for images, it provides a few
examples, but is no way exhaustive: It has a pointer to WAI guidance for
further information.

"The guidance included here addresses the most common ways authors use
images. Additional guidance and techniques are available in Resources on
Alternative Text for Images <http://w3.org/WAI/alt/>."

http://w3c.github.io/alt-techniques/#requirements-for-providing-text-to-act-as-an-alternative-for-images

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Oct/0047.html


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>

On 14 October 2014 18:11, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:48:22 -0400
> Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Normally the way things like these are handled is that the status
> > section is updated with a warning and a link to the relevant bugs, and
> > the heartbeat is published.
> >
> > Two such bugs are linked in the previous heartbeat:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-html-alt-techniques-20121025/
> >
> > Is there any reason why such couldn't be done in this case?
>
> Minuimum for me would be to link to
>   https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=26868
> at the two examples (caption and complex image description) that should at
> least mention longdesc.
>
> Since we had consensus on publishing longdesc I don't see how we could
> have consensus on a document that could be taken as implying (although it
> doesn't say) that one shouldn't use longdesc.
>
> The TF hadn't reviewed the document, I think, in light of longdesc moving
> forward.
>
> There are some other technical issues with it, but those don't (in my
> view) need to be resolved before a heartbeat can be published, and there
> are bugs on the ones I know about.
>
> It would be helpful to wait until the Director's Decision was published on
> longdesc before putting this document out, even as a heartbeat, but that
> seems to be taking much longer than expected, and is a political rather
> than a technical request.
>
> Hope this is clearer.
>
> Liam
>
> --
> Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 05:57:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:44 UTC