W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > August 2014

Re: Formal Objection to advancing the HTML Image Description document along the REC track

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:44:22 +0100
Message-ID: <53F5CD86.4060102@splintered.co.uk>
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
On 21/08/2014 01:30, Edward O'Connor wrote:


> # Conclusion
> The many technical shortcomings of longdesc, both those inherent to its
> design and those that have been demonstrated in practice since it was
> first proposed, have been repeatedly brought to the attention of this
> Working Group over many years. Given these shortcomings, and the
> widespread support in web content engines for better alternatives, we do
> authors a disservice by encouraging them to rely on longdesc to make
> their images accessible.
> We've been debating longdesc for years. I've heard from a few people
> that they just don't have the time or energy to argue about this
> anymore, and I fear that there are many others like them. We're facing
> the real risk of consensus by exhaustion.

I've been trying to avoid taking sides publicly, as longdesc seems to be 
such a talismanic issue that has been debated for so long. And 
admittedly, the silence was mostly due to my belief that there are far 
more important issues to concentrate on in accessibility.

But for the record (and this is my personal view, not that of my 
employer) most, if not all, the points in Ted's et al. formal objection 
resonate with me. So at the risk of being accused of a lack of 
commitment to Sparkle Motion, I'm going to publicly nod my cautious 
support for this objection.

Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2014 10:44:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:29 UTC