[Bug 24168] Please revise new normative statement and example

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

--- Comment #4 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Sadecki from comment #3)

Hi Mark,

Thank you very much for removing the incorrect and prejudicial language from
the example. Much appreciated.

However, the categorical normative statement "Authors should not rely solely on
longdesc where standards exist to provide direct, structured access." is still
an issue.

For instance a direct aria-describedat image description solution may be good
choice if native HTML semantics did not already exist or if it was supported
better than longdesc.  But it would be foolhardy to use aria-describedat if it
provided less or the same accessibility support as longdesc. If
aria-describedat provides less or equal accessibility authors should not use it
instead of longdesc. 

The introduction to ARIA clearly states, "WAI-ARIA is intended to be used as a
supplement for native language semantics, not a replacement. When the host
language provides a feature that provides equivalent accessibility to the
WAI-ARIA feature, use the host language feature." [4] 

As Derek Featherstone has stated, "ARIA is designed to provide accessibility at
a technical level - what you might call 'programmatic accessibility' - where it
doesn't already exist." Longdesc exists.  

The first rule of ARIA use is "If you can use a native HTML element [HTML5] or
attribute with the semantics and behaviour you require already built in,
instead of re-purposing an element and adding an ARIA role, state or property
to make it accessible, then do so."  [5] For further rationale please consult:
"Using a Bridging Technology is Backward". [2] 

I suggest changing the normative statement to something that takes this into
consideration such as:

"Authors should not rely solely other standards to provide direct, structured
access when longdesc provides equivalent accessibility."

Or I suggest adding clause to qualify and explain the circumstance of when it
would be appropriate, such as:

"Authors should not rely solely on longdesc when a standard exists to provide
direct, structured access and that standard provides increased accessibility."

If the categorical normative statement is not changed it will be confusing,
could lead to less accessible content, violate other specifications [5], and be
an unnecessary burden upon authors who have already expended time and effort in
using longdesc correctly in their work.

Thank you,
Laura

[2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/bridging.html 
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/introduction
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-aria-in-html-20131003/#first-rule-of-aria-use

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

Received on Sunday, 22 June 2014 16:19:37 UTC