W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: EOWG Comments on longdesc

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:48:48 -0400
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, "Shawn Henry" <shawn@w3.org>
Cc: "Mark Sadecki" <mark@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.xhemfmj3y3oazb@chaals.local>
Dear Shawn and EOWG,

please find below our detailed replies, but in summary we have accepted  
all your comments and they are incorporated into our latest draft at  
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html  
which we hope to make a Candidate Recommendation.

We hope the changes we have made satisfy your outstanding comments. Thank  
you for your efforts and patience - we feel the end results has been a  
better document.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 18:15:04 -0500, Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear Chaals and TF,
>
> Thank you for your response. Here are replies on a few points:
>
>>> * Introduction: Provide a little context at the beginning, briefly
>>> explaining what long descriptions are. For suggested wording, see
>>> the Image concepts page <http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/>
>>> (note the lower sections have "Why is this important" and "How to
>>> make images accessible") and Complex
>>> images<http://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex>.
>>
>> We will add more information in the introduction as suggested.
>> However the pages you suggested do not appear stable enough to be a
>> reference in this document, so we will not link specifically to
>> them.
>
> Correct, the pages are not stable enough to be referenced in the  
> document -- indeed we will be editing them soon. We did not intend to  
> suggest that they be referenced; we only pointed to them for ideas for  
> wording in the Introduction.
>
> On 21 January we checked again for new Introduction wording at  
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-proposals/raw-file/default/longdesc1/longdesc.html>  
> and do not see it yet. Please inform us when the Introduction wording is  
> ready for us to review in reply to this comment.

We have now done this.

>>> *Suggested edit to the paragraph under Use Cases and Requirements
>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>: "Text alternatives are
>>> required so that users can successfully understand and interact
>>> with images even if they cannot see, or see well. The alt attribute
>>> is designed to contain a short description. This is sufficient for
>>> most images, and should provide enough information to ensure that
>>> users understand the image's purpose. Some images contain more
>>> information than can effectively be provided in a short
>>> description. The longdesc attribute is designed for longer
>>> descriptions to meet use cases such as the following." — although,
>>> some of this information may be better in the Introduction per
>>> previous comment...
>>
>> Whether an image needs a long description can depend on context as
>> well as the image itself. Alt is designed to provide a functional
>> replacement text, not a short description. In many cases text
>> alternatives are not necessary to support interaction. We therefore
>> do not propose to adopt this edit.
>
> EOWG is uncomfortable with the first paragraph at  
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/#UCnR>. For example, "everyday work"  
> seems to make light of the importance of text equivalents in all cases;  
> "information to replace an image" may not be understood; "often this is  
> more helpful than a detailed description of every image" seems a  
> tangential comment rather than a key point.
>
> We provided a suggested edit to show the flavor of what we think the  
> paragraph should say; however, we are fine with you changing our  
> suggested edit. Here is another suggestion that hopefully addresses your  
> concerns:
> "Text alternatives for images enable people who cannot see to get the  
> information that is provided in images. The alt attribute is designed to  
> contain short functionally equivalent text, either the function of the  
> image or a short description, based on the context. For many images,  
> short alt is sufficient for users to get the information they need about  
> the image. For some images and contexts, users need more detailed  
> information from the image. The longdesc attribute is designed as a  
> means to provide this detailed information, such as in the following use  
> cases."

We have taken this as a base, and hope the result is satisfactory.

> We hope that between the two suggestions you can see what we think are  
> the importance points to get across here and how it has a very different  
> flavor than what is in the draft -- and we *welcome for you to edit our  
> suggestions*.
>
> Also note the related comment about the Introduction -- Probably this  
> information is best in the Introduction and then the Use Cases section  
> needs only a simple sentence to introduce it.

Indeed, thank you for the suggestion. We did that.

>>> * Current wording: "This document does not define the term
>>> "accessible" nor accessibility, but uses them with the sense they
>>> have in [WCAG]" Change reference from WCAG to Introduction to Web
>>> Accessibility <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility> then can
>>> say more directly: "This document does not define the terms
>>> "accessible" or "accessibility"; it uses them as explained in
>>> Introduction to Web Accessibility.
>>
>> That document referenced has no apparent stability or persistence
>> policy. For a reference we prefer to use a W3C Recommendation which
>> has both.
>
> WCAG 2.0 does not define or explain accessibility, and thus it seems a  
> weak reference for your point. WAI Resources such as "Introduction to  
> Web Accessibility" are commonly referred to in W3C specs -- WCAG itself  
> refers to <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php>. WAI Resources follow  
> the W3C URI Persistence Policy  
> (<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Persistence.html>). While we provide a  
> changelog for many WAI Resources, we do not provide a public archive of  
> all previous versions of most WAI Resources.
>
> Please reconsider the best reference in this case, and let us know how  
> we can provide specific, documented assurances with regard to the  
> stability and persistence of "Introduction to Web Accessibility" to meet  
> your needs.

We took a simple statement from the intro document to say what we meant.  
We provided a further informative link to the introductory document.

> We look forward to your further reply.

cheers

Chaals and Mark

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 13 June 2014 17:49:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:02 UTC