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  
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.


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 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:49 UTC