- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 15:40:40 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21564 --- Comment #2 from Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> --- (In reply to comment #1) > In general I think this is a bad idea, and in practice I think that unless > it is extremely carefully phrased, it provides a way to justify not > supporting longdesc: "The vast majority of longdescs are useless, so a valid > heuristic is to say that if there is a longdesc it is useless and suppress > it". Easy to implement, likely to be recommended by some strong and > respected advocates of HTML, but I think highly counter-productive to > accessibility in general and the purposes of this specification in > particular. > > It might make sense to modify this proposal to provide an exception case for > 21566, but IMHO only when it has been *determined* that the specific > longdesc is useless. (There's still weasel-room with that proposal, but this > spec is not going to solve all the problems of human behaviour, it will just > tell people who want to get this right how to do so.) I understand your thinking. But as for those 96% procent of 'useless', then not all of those are not necessarily useless. Useless and wrong are not the same, if UAs use the MAY option to present textual content. Also, I think that the critical voices will in general be more favorable if it is shown that longdesc is in fact something that users can rely on. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 15:40:45 UTC