W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: ISSUE-204: aria-hidden - Chairs Solicit Proposals (was: Chair review of "Keep Longdesc Deprecated")

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:04:47 -0700
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org LIST" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-id: <46C3C228-3CFD-4F78-AE99-9FF7180F336E@apple.com>
To: Matthew Turvey <mcturvey@gmail.com>

On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:03 PM, Matthew Turvey wrote:

> Benjamin,
> Thanks very much for taking the time to provide good feedback. Before
> going any further I'd like to see whether it's possible to reach
> amicable consensus on this issue.
> In my personal opinion, the W3C should be focusing on universal
> design, not segregation, in HTML5.
> However, the HTML-A11Y-TF felt compelled to formally object to HTML5
> Last Call unless longdesc was included as a conforming feature, and
> WAI are now apparently working on a new aria-describedat attribute to
> provide the same function.
> This is despite no one being able to come up with any use cases that
> specifically require longdesc after 15 years of discussion:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0058.html
> So this CP provides a way to easily separate the "providing
> programmatically determinable long descriptions" requirement from the
> WAI/HTML-A11Y-TF's "hide them from sighted users" requirement, while
> still allowing both requirements to be satisfied if needed. This seems
> to me to be a reasonable compromise that everyone could support.
> Is anyone planning to write a change proposal arguing against allowing
> ARIA to reference @hidden content? Or can the HTMLWG agree amicable
> consensus on this issue and move on?

You're more likely to get consensus on your proposal if you revise the rationale. It's logically possible to support keeping longdesc and to also support ARIA pointing to @hidden content. And the Details of your proposal would probably be acceptable to a person who supports such a position, but the Rationale likely would not, since it needlessly argues against longdesc. An example of a Rationale that might be more broadly persuasive would use an example that does not directly compete with longdesc, for example in a non-<img> context.

Remember that we still have ISSUE-30 to resolve subsequently, which will decide the fate of longdesc. The goal of splitting this issue was to separate the ARIA topic from deciding the fate of ARIA.

(These are only informal comments, you can expect a formal review of your Change Proposal for the Chairs at a later time.)

Received on Monday, 12 March 2012 23:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC