W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2009

Re: ISSUE-30 (Longdesc) Change Proposal

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:09:00 -0600
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0912171209na482387n2d787621ebfb9f4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Chaals,

I can put this up in the Wiki if it helps.

Best Regards,

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> Your edited version looks good in terms of meeting the requirements, would
> you mind sending a flat copy without the varying quoting levels, or else put
> it in the Wiki, so I can have a nice readable copy to link in the status
> list? (I'll link this version in the meantime.)
> On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:39:11 +0100, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for providing a Change Proposal for this issue! The chairs are
>>> reviewing Change Proposals to ensure that they meet the required structure.
>>> Here is our feedback on this Change Proposal:
>>> (1) This Change Proposal lacks a clearly marked Summary section (perhaps
>>> some of the introductory text is a summary, but that is not clear).
>>> (2) This Change Proposal lacks a clearly marked Details section, and does
>>> not provide sufficient detail to identify a specific change. It's mentioned
>>> that many sections may change, but does not identify explicitly which
>>> changes are required by the Change Proposal.
>>> (3) This Change Proposal lacks an Impact section.
>>> On Oct 26, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>> I would like to propose that the longdesc attribute from HTML 4 be
>>>> retained in HTML 5 as an allowed attribute on images.
>>>> This implies the following changes to the spec:
>> [I assume these are reasonably clear, and provide sufficient information
>> for the editor to incorporate the relevant changes into his workflow. Is
>> that assumption valid, and if not, can you please clarify what I should be
>> providing?]
>>>> at
>> Section 4.8.2
>>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/text-level-semantics.html#the-img-element img
>>>> would also become interactive content with longdesc present.
>> i.e. add "or longdesc" after "usemap" in the phrase "If the element has a
>> usemap attribute" under the 'Categories' item.
>>>> The longdesc attribute would be listed as an attribute for the element.
>> i.e. Add "longdesc" to the list of content attributes, and
>> "attribute DOMString longdesc;" to the attributes listed in the DOM
>> Interface for the img element.
>>>> The attribute is described already in HTML 4 [1] and the description can
>>>> be re-used although it should be made clear that the URI to which longdesc
>>>> refers can be a relative reference to some part of the same page (in order
>>>> to be explicit about which content is associated with the image), or a
>>>> different page.
>> I.e. in the first sentence at [1], add text such as "which may refer to a
>> point within the current page or to a different page" after the work "link".
>>>> The example, which references an image but appears to provide useless
>>>> alt text should not be copied from HTML 4.
>>>> Other sections that may change:
>>>>,, should all mention that a longdesc *may*
>>>> be provided to provide a detailed *description* of the image, e.g. to help a
>>>> person who cannot see it to find it from a description.
>>>> should mention it as a way to make the association between an
>>>> image and the relevant text explicit.
>>>> should mention it as the preferred way to point to a
>>>> description of the image if this is desired, rather than mis-using the alt
>>>> attribute for this purpose.
>>>> should mention that where an image is a key part of the
>>>> content, it should have sufficient text in the alt attribute to replace the
>>>> image, and using the longdesc attribute for critical information is a
>>>> mistake. However, it can be used for additional information if desired.
>>>> This has been a controversial topic. It is clear that longdesc is
>>>> relevant only to a fraction of images on the Web, and that it is only
>>>> provided in a few of the cases where it is actually relevant. It is also
>>>> clearly subject to bogus values to a large extent (perhaps the majority of
>>>> the time). And its use is relatively limited, even by those who might be
>>>> expected to appreciate it.
>>>> However, it has been implemented multiple times successfully. The fact
>>>> that there is bad data associated might account for low overall usage, but
>>>> has relatively little impact on implementations, which can readily choose to
>>>> simply ignore values which are not URIs, or even to present the value to the
>>>> user, and relatively little impact on the user, who can still benefit from a
>>>> *good* usage.
>>>> This would require conformance checking to accept the attribute as
>>>> valid, and would imply maintaining the existing requirement on Authoring
>>>> Tools[2] to allow the author to use this functionality. It would maintain
>>>> conformance of HTML-4 tools and content, rather than the current expected
>>>> change leaving them non-conforming.
>> This has no impact on existing HTML-4 browsers, many of which fail to make
>> longdesc accessible other than via the DOM. Failure to make this change
>> will have an impact on assistive technologies such as screen readers,
>> which use the longdesc attribute to find descriptions of images.
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/struct/objects.html#adef-longdesc-IMG
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG-10/ makes several relevant requiremnts
>>>> cheers
>>>> Chaals
>>>> --Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>>>  je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
>>>> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
>> --
>> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>>     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
>> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 20:10:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:04 UTC