[Bug 24168] Please revise new normative statement and example

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24168

Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |john@foliot.ca
         Resolution|FIXED                       |---

--- Comment #2 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Charles McCathieNevile from comment #1)
> we did this. see today's editors' draft.

Hi Chaals,

I checked the 13 June 2014 editors draft but don't see the normative statement
changed. Is the change in a different document? 

The document at:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html#authors
still says "should not". It reads:

"Authors should not rely solely on longdesc where standards exist to provide
direct, structured access." 

I suggested making it a "may" something such as:
"Authors may use other standards in addition to longdesc if those standards
provide semantic, programmatic, direct, and structured access." 

And the example was not improved. It reads:

"For example a MathML version of mathematical content, or an SVG image that
uses the accessibility features of SVG, can provide better accessibility to
users with appropriate technology. In such cases, it is appropriate to use
longdesc as a fallback strategy, in combination with more modern techniques."

I had suggested something such as:

"For example a MathML version of mathematical content, or an SVG image that
uses the accessibility features of SVG, can provide good accessibility to users
with appropriate technology. In such cases, it is appropriate to use those
techniques in combination with longdesc."

This current spec text still contains incorrect and prejudicial longdesc
information as it infers that longdesc is not modern. The fact that we have a
new longdesc spec and new a longdesc implementation with FireFox does indeed
make longdesc modern.

In addition the normative statement is confusing in relation to
aria-describedat. Using a bridging technology would backward. Please consult
[2] for full rationale. HTML has native, built-in long description semantics
with longdesc. 

I noticed John's email and conclusion regarding MATHML [3]. He wrote:

"Conclusion: neither technique has robust support today, and recommending
either is problematic. Recommendation is to strike any reference to the
suitability or non-suitability of using @longdesc for complex math, but to
avoid suggesting that MathML has sufficient support today."

I would be fine with striking any reference to MathML and for the spec to read:

"For example a SVG image that uses the accessibility features of SVG, can
provide good accessibility to users with appropriate technology. In such cases,
it is appropriate to use those techniques in combination with longdesc."

Thanks,
Laura

[2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/bridging.html 
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014May/0090.html

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 20:44:36 UTC