Re: Chair review of "Keep Longdesc Deprecated" Change Proposal for ISSUE-30

On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Chair feedback on the Keep Longdesc Deprecated proposal:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/DeprecateLongdesc
>
> - In general, this Change Proposal includes all of the required parts, has sufficient detail to be applied unambiguously, and provides rationale for the changes proposed.
>
> Here are the key points of feedback, relative to other Change Proposals:
>
> - The proposal claims that aria-describedby, combined with the enhancements to aria-describedby that it proposes, can address the use cases for longdesc. Use cases were the key issue in the original ISSUE-30 decision, in particular the lack of presented use cases that are uniquely addressed by longdesc.  It would be helpful to enumerate each of the use cases mentioned in the InstateLongdesc proposal and, for each, show how aria-describedby could be used and why it would be equivalent or better for that specific use case.
>
> As Sam wrote regarding the zero-change proposal for this issue: "The history of this issue is that the primary reason that the original proposal to instate Longdesc wasn't selected was lack of use cases.  Use cases were later provided and the chairs have publicly stated that that information would likely have materially affected the outcome of the last survey."
>
> As a result of similar feedback on the zero-change proposal for this issue, a "Use Cases" section was added, addressing each of the use cases from the InstateLongdesc proposal: <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/LongdescZeroEdit#Use_Cases>. This chaange made the "Zero Edit" Change Proposal significantly more effective. We recommend either incorporating a similar explanation to the "Keep Longdesc Deprecated" proposal, or referencing the "Zero Edit" proposal, or some combination.
>
> - As compared to the zero edit Change Proposal for this issue, this proposal suggests a material change, namely allowing aria-describedby to reference hidden elements. However, it does not provide any specific use cases that justify this change. In the course of ensuring that all use cases are addressed, this proposal should be updated to show that either some use cases cannot be fully met without this change, or that some cases cannot be met as effectively without this change, or some combination. Otherwise, there will be no reason to consider this proposal over the zero change proposal.
>
> Here are some less essential points of feedback:
>
> - The Change Proposal claims that "a lot of people seem to misunderstand how the attribute works". The supporting argument is that the attribute is used incorrectly in "a large number of cases". No concrete evidence of this point (not even a single example) is provided.
>
> - The Change Proposal argues that one problem with longdesc is that it encourages putting the description in a separate document. It does not explain why this is a problem. Mentioning concrete downsides of using a separate document would make this argument stronger.
>
> - Many of the Positive Effects points are presented without supporting evidence or arguments. Some of these may be implied by the rest of the proposal, but it is better to make the arguments explicit. Example of a point presented without zupporting evidence or arguments:
>  * Makes it possible to write simpler tutorials for how to make HTML5 contents accessible.
> Example of a point presented with a supporting argument:
>  * Allows tools to be simpler since they can use a single mechanism for providing descriptions for elements.
>
> - A few other points lack specific supporting evidence: "browsers have traditionally been very reluctant", and "dividing their time between longdesc and aria-describedby" are claims presented without evidence. Likewise, it is not clearly established that the education savings would outweigh the cost of updating educational materials.
>
> - In addition, John Foliot presented some counter-arguments to the Deprecate Longdesc proposal: <http://www.w3.org/wiki/A11yTF/longdescresponse>. While the Chairs have not yet reviewed the merits of these counter-arugments in detail, we nontheless advise reviewing and addressing them (whether by changing what is proposed or simply offering explanations), since these comments were specifically written to address this Change Proposal.
>
>
> If anybody plans on either revising any of the current proposals or to submit a new proposal based on this feedback, please let us know so that we can plan accordingly.

I won't have time to make these changes unfortunately.

I did add a section that rebuts some of the claims that has been made
in other change proposals and on this list.

If someone wants to take the time to update my change proposal as
requested above that would be appreciated.

/ Jonas

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 07:08:21 UTC