[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |janina@rednote.net

--- Comment #5 from Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> ---
Hi Janina,

In reply to your email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Jun/0116.html

I wholeheartedly agree that it would be nonsensical to mention aria-describedat
in the longdesc spec. That is not what I suggested. I suggested clarifying the
categorical normative statement. 

In bug Comment 3 Mark stated: "we do want to encourage authors to use other
markup solutions in addition to longdesc if those solutions may result in
better accessibility in user agents that support them." Increased accessibility
is what we all want. 

However, that is not what the normative statement says. It categorically
proclaims: "Authors should not rely solely on longdesc where standards exist to
provide direct, structured access." 

There is no qualifying phrase saying anything about increased accessibility.
Again, I request adding a clarifying clause to the end of the normative
statement, letting people know when the statement would be appropriate such as:

"and that standard provides increased accessibility."

So the full statement would read:

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

Please fix this issue. If it is not fixed it 1) will be confusing, 2) could
lead to less accessible content, 3) violate other specifications, and 4) be an
unnecessary burden upon authors who have already expended time and effort in
using longdesc correctly in their work.

Alternatively if a categorical normative statement is needed, simply add the
following to the spec:

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

Thank you very much.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

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

Received on Saturday, 28 June 2014 19:10:56 UTC