Re: ISSUE-30 longdesc - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

On 16 June 2011 03:13, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> James Graham writes:
>> On 06/15/2011 03:54 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
>> >Matthew Turvey writes:
>> >>longdesc is not implemented in Orca or VoiceOver so is currently
>> >
>> >Stop right there. Repeating untruths does not make them true.
>> >
>> > aobviously, you haven't looked at:
>> >
>> > html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>>
>> Sorry, could you be more clear about what exactly you mean here? I
>> guessed that you might mean [1], but that doesn't seem to mention
>> VoiceOver or Orca at all.
>>
>> A little internet searching suggests that longdesc might well not be
>> supported in Orca [2], VoiceOver [3] or, indeed, NVDA [4], so I am confused
>> as to what the "untruths" you refer to are. Has the level of support in
>> those UAs changed recently?
>
> Nevertheless, Orca can access longdesc perfectly well via the Firefox
> plugin that is mentioned in the CP. In fact, I use it myself all the
> time.

I can't see any "untruths" here. Has the level of support in these UAs
changed recently? :)

Since Orca and VoiceOver do not currently implement support for
londesc, *by default* longdesc is inaccessible on the Mac and Linux
platforms.

Users can install a Firefox longdesc extension, or maybe a Safari
longdesc extension in future. Maybe some have even heard of iCab. But
they need to know about it first, to be able to install it, as Jason's
experience demonstrates.

Users could also install an aria-describedby extension, but don't
necessarily need to because the element(s) pointed to by
aria-describedby are available on the page by default. Apologies if my
mangled sentences confused you.

> My friend Jason just wasn't aware he needed a plugin. Regretable--and it
> needs remedy, but
> that doesn't invalidate the functionality that is available.

It does appear to invalidate your claim that longdesc currently "DOES
provide effective and consistent support for users regardless of
browser and AT".

This is why the RNIB's Surf Right standard explicitly recommends *not*
using longdesc, and WebAIM recommends using a duplicate link if using
longdesc. Longdesc is not available to all users, so you cannot rely
on it to deliver a "a reliable and effective user experience."

My understanding is PFWG members support obsoleting longdesc, but some
members believe we need more time to properly deprecate it. Is that
correct? Could you answer the questions from Sam's email?

1) WHO needs more time?
2) How much time would they LIKE?
3) How much time could they LIVE WITH?
4) What would be the IMPACT in terms of negative effects if they were
not provided that time?

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Apr/0181.html

-Matt

Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:54:46 UTC