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

Re: EOWG Comments on longdesc

From: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:32:15 +0200
To: "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C71B9369-276F-4F02-9E46-E3A8A1C4561E@w3.org>
Hi EO WG,

Just had a look at the changes and I’m fine with them. They condensed 
our suggestion for the “Use Cases and Requirements” section to the 
essential, but I think that makes it very clear and even easier to 
understand.

Best,
Eric

On 13 Jun 2014, at 19:48, Charles McCathie Nevile wrote:

> 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




--

Eric Eggert, Web Accessibility Specialist
WAI-ACT Project

I’m yatil on IRC.
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 15:32:44 UTC

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