- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 08:29:42 -0700
- To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
>>?> Honestly, I am flabbergasted by ... this insanity. I prefer the term unsanity, but I think I agree. On top of all this, the gov doc Ian is referencing looked fairly convincing. When I see something like that I would think the champions of @summary have to counter that alternative understanding directly. That is, @summary is a weak substitute for adequate clues in the surrounding text and other supporting content. With that statement in mind, one position of @summary supporters must be that yes, we 'All' need the supporting stuff recommended by the gov article and we 'All' want to improve how @summary and related 'assistive' hooks are provided and used. >From the article, I might find elsewhere an argument that @alt and @long... should be obsoleted and instead authors follow the pattern of appropriate info scattered into the surrounding content. If this is true and a reasonable comparision, then we just need to do a much better job with @summary and supporting info so that authors feel the somewhat parallel needs to have descriptive info in the related and surrounding and otherwise referenced content and, importantly, to aim some specific assistive or alternative technology and special content via @summary and maybe some other targeted keyword containers. For instance, how about a chance to formulate a suggestion to augment @summary with other targeted aids such as @structure to describe some info like axes, values, and blanks along with something like @navigation that tells of interactive features used to extract info from the table. Thank You and Best Regards, Joe
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 15:30:25 UTC