- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:10:20 -0500
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Hi Leif, On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no> wrote: > Laura Carlson, Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:54:27 -0500: > >>> <picture> >>> <img src=file alt=text longdesc=description.url > >>> </picture> >>> >>> QUESTION: How would users of the equipment listed on your >>> research page access that longdesc? >>> ANSWER: It would be broken in some of them... >>> >>> Browsers: I believe it would not work in a single one of the browsers >>> that you list. E.g. it would not work in iCab. Why not? >>> Because you cannot access the context menu for an image >>> that is hidden behind another element. >> >> This is incorrect Leif. It seems to work in all of them that I tested. >> >> Here is a test page: >> http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/research/constriants/picture-test.html > > When your message arrived, it was 3,5 hours since my reply to Adrian, > where I included links to the <picture> test upon which I based the > above claims. [*] But there is nothing in your message that signals > that you or Geez have seen or evaluated that test page. So I am gonna > assume that you deemed me incorrect without having checked my test page. > > |*] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0064.hrml I did not read message 0064 until today, Leif. I thought that you hadn't tested anything per your message at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html Hence, did my initial testing based upon your 0056 message. > I checked your test page: > > (1) There is no responsive image - or polyfill features that are > typical for such images - in that test - it is just an > <img> with a picture wrapper around. Correct. I based my test markup upon the markup that you provided in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html . That was, and I quote: <picture> img src=file alt=text longdesc=description.url > </picture> > The picture wrapper > does not contain any image (via CSS) like the responsive > image polyfills always do. Obviously, in a picture polyfill > the picture image would (normally) cover the image of the img > element, which in turns makes the img inaccessible for > contextual menu access. Any pollyfill would need to take into account accessibility requirements for short and long text alternatives and engineer them to provide needed functionality. I wonder if a JavaScipt polyfill would work better by not covering anything and swapping in the image. > (2) To insinuate that I said that an unstyled <picture> element > would create anymore problems than an unstyled <div> or <span> > really isn't very helpful. The markup that you provided in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0056.html was indeed unstyled. Message #0056 is what I based my tests upon and to which I replied. I haven't read further in this thread until today. > And my test page I notified you about, do try to check the longdesc > accessibility for that kind of polyfill: > http://malform.no/testing/a-demo-of/picture-element-accessible-longdesc/ Thanks for the link Leif. I will take a look. Best Regards, Laura -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 16:10:47 UTC