Re: CfC: to maintain "Image Description Extension (longdesc)" Working Draft on the Recommendation track

On 29 January 2014 11:58, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 01/27/2014 01:37 PM, Matthew Turvey wrote:
>>
>> I object to publishing this "Image Description Extension (longdesc)"
>>
>> Working Draft on the Recommendation track.
>>
>> Plan 2014 suggested people focus on providing a better solution to the
>> use cases longdesc supposedly addresses.
>
>
> Incorrect.  Here's what plan 2014 actually says:
>
> "Allow the A11y TF the authority to produce an extension spec that defines a
> longdesc attribute. If such a specification obtains consensus and meets the
> proposed CR exit criteria by 2014Q2 it could be folded back into the core
> HTML spec by that time. This can be combined with a solution for issue 203
> and/or with work on a purported replacement.
>
> We ask those that oppose instating a longdesc attribute to focus on
> producing a better solution, and meanwhile not oppose those that wish to
> pursue longdesc via an extension spec or making progress towards
> demonstrating that it meets the identified CR exit criteria."
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#issue-30

To be clear, I'm disputing the "focus on providing a better solution"
part I specifically mentioned above, and the suggestion this document
is published as a Recommendation without addressing the problems with
it, and without any use cases that specifically require this
functionality.

Accessibility features should be subject to the same quality control
as any other feature. Which is why I'm objecting to *this* Call for
Consensus. If objections are not allowed, please make that clear in
future when issuing a "Call for Consensus".

[crop]
> It isn't clear what your point is here.  It is indeed true that there exist
> people who are still suggesting longdesc as a viable technique at this
> moment in time.
>
> If you are suggesting that longdesc will not meet the proposed exit
> criteria, I encourage you to bring your evidence for this assertion forward.

I'm suggesting we're doing a disservice to users, authors and
implementors by making longdesc a conforming attribute, without
providing any indication that using longdesc is currently problematic,
when alternative techniques are already well-known and
widely-practiced, and HTMLWG and WAI intend to obsolete it anyway.

An "obsolete but conforming" warning in conformance checkers would
mean authors who previously followed WCAG advice are not penalised
with a conformance error for doing so, but are warned that using
longdesc is problematic, so they can fix their pages *before* it is
obsoleted.

[crop]
>> I'd like to propose instead:
>>
>> 1. The HTMLWG publish this document as a Note to indicate work - and
>> discussion - on this feature is finished
>>
>> 2. Reinstate longdesc into HTML5.0 as a "obsolete but conforming" feature
>>
>> 3. Make longdesc "obsolete" in HTML5.1
>>
>> This approach has the advantage of ensuring authors, implementors and
>> this Working Group do not spend any more time on a feature that is
>> known to be problematic for users at the current time, and that is
>> going to be obsoleted in the near future anyway.
>
>
> The key word in this is text is 'near'.  I've heard this for five+ years.
> Lacking a complete and concrete proposal -- including a plan to address the
> exit criteria required -- usage of the the word 'near' in this context is
> premature.

No, the key word in this text is 'problematic'.

Because using longdesc is currently 'problematic' and has been for
*sixteen+ years*, replacement techniques are already well-known and
widely-practiced and have been for *sixteen+ years* eg:

"Only some user agents or user agents combined with assistive
technologies make long descriptions linked via the longdesc attribute
accessible, for example by exposing it via a context menu. Even fewer
make it easily discoverable, for example by announcing the presence of
the long description or providing a indicator in the toolbar that long
descriptions are present. You may wish to consider using more
widely-supported techniques such as G73 or G74 instead."
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Apr/0077.html

In terms of timing, as I understand it WAI intend to obsolete longdesc
with ARIA1.1 next year.

-Matt

Received on Saturday, 1 February 2014 13:54:56 UTC