- From: Maurice Carey <maurice@thymeonline.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 12:18:45 -0400
- To: HTML Working Group <public-html@w3.org>
Could I get a link to a couple live pages using longdesc properly? On 6/23/07 12:01 AM, "scott lewis" <sfl@scotfl.ca> wrote: > On 22 Jun 2007, at 2104, Denis Boudreau (WebConforme) wrote: > >> Evening all, >> >>>> Anyway, what rationale for dropping longdesc? >>> >>> IIRC, the reason for not including it was because very few authors >>> ever use it and, when it is used, it's not used properly. >> >> OMG, that argument again. Who cares if it's useful. Quickly, let's >> trash h1 to h6 also - and let's not forget blockquote while we're >> at it. > > I don't think anyone disputes longdesc's theoretical utility. But no > matter how useful an element is _in theory_ if no one produces > documents using that element it has no utility _in practice_. The > issue at hand is to show the utility of longdesc in practice. Again, > I am not saying that longdesc is useless, only that it's utility has > not been proven in this forum as of right now. > > >> Longdesc are essential for screen readers to provide long >> descriptions for graphics that otherwise could not be described >> because the nature of their content is just too complicated for a >> simple alt attribute. This is a crucial feature for the benefit of >> visually impaired users working with screen readers. Longdesc >> provides the ONLY mean available to describe, in a non-obtrusive >> way, the nature of an image in an external file while remaining >> invisible to typical, unimpaired users and user agents. Screen >> readers are finally getting it's implementation right and we're >> dropping it? > > A survey showing the support (or absence thereof) for longdesc > amongst ATs would be very useful. Not everyone in the WG deals with > AT on a regular basis, and thus the more information provided by > those who do work with AT regularly, the better for everyone. > > Both usage of longdesc in the wild and AT support for the element > need to be established in order to make a reasonable judgement of > it's value. If, as you say, ATs have only recently begun to support > the element, that would go a long way to explaining a lack of usage > in the wild. Conversely, if ATs have supported the element for a long > period of time, a lack of usage in the wild would indicate a > rejection of longdesc by authors. Either way, data on the actual > usage of longdesc, and data on the actual support for longdesc are > required before a conclusion can be reached. > > If it turns out that longdesc has been rejected by authors, it would > seem a good idea to discover why. And then to find a way to deliver > the value of longdesc in a way that authors would actually use. But > that is entirely academic until we know how widely longdesc is > actually supported and used. > > >> Is there a single accessibility feature in HTML that will survive >> this group? Why is the left hand (html-wg) so bluntly ignoring what >> the right one (wai-wg) does? >> >>> More research on the issue is welcome. In particular, evidence of >>> significant real world usage that provides a practical benefit to >>> users would be good. >> >> And why should we bother? There has been a lot of efforts made >> previously by John (Folliot) and others in order to save summary >> and headers in tables. Still, the draft hasn't backed out one bit >> on the subject. If that didn't give anything, what will? Lachlan, >> why wouldn't you, for a change (as John had so eloquently asked >> previously), provide evidence that this attribute is useless? Those >> of us who work with screen reader users on a regular basis know >> that this attribute is extremely relevant when it is used properly. >> If authors are using it all wrong, then let's educate them instead >> of slashing into features that significantly contribute to the >> inclusion of disabled people on the web. > > The HTML5 spec has not been written. There exists a draft version > which is currently being reviewed, but it is not the final version, > it is only a starting point. That starting point has been described > as being weak on accessibility, very well, that is why the review > process exists. The only way the spec can get better is if everyone > participates in the review and brings their knowledge and experience > to the table. > > That said, when a change is requested the burden of proof falls on > the requester. And that swings both ways: someone wanting to add > <longdesc> into the spec faces the same burden of proof as someone > wanting to take <image>'s @alt out of the spec. > > To address your specific point: the @headers issue is still > unresolved. When the issue is resolved the spec will be updated to > reflect the WG's decision on the matter. I trust that you would agree > yo-yoing text in and out of the spec based on which way the > discussion seems to be leaning at a given point would be a waste of > the editors' time. > > >> It's already hard enough for the blind. We don't need to make it >> even more complicated for them simply because we're too caught up >> in our own little things to grasp such a simple concept. > > I agree completely. I hope you agree that we should examine the > issues in order to make sure we are actually meeting that goal. > > s. -- :: thyme online ltd :: po box cb13650 nassau the bahamas :: website: http://www.thymeonline.com/ :: tel: 242 327-1864 fax: 242 377 1038
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 16:28:39 UTC