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

EOWG Comments on longdesc

From: Bim Egan <bim@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:46:33 +0100
To: "'EOWG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2E561D5019774B94B8182DAF459BED09@bimlaptop>
Hi EOWG,

I agree with Eric, all requested changes appear to have been made.  However,
I have two concerns: 
1. The shortness of the abstract, which doesn't give a clear overview of the
document.
2. A note under 3. The longdesc Attribute:
"Note that this extension changes the definition of a hyperlink in HTML, by
allowing a longdesc attribute to occur inside a hyperlink."
This could cause confusion, surely the longdesc attribute can only occur
inside an image element?  The image itself may be inside a link, but if this
is what is meant, it should be made clear.  Example code samples don't cover
this point 

Shawn: I'll be raising comment 2 with Mark and Jeanne, as I have usability
and accessibility concerns about this and they may be able to answer these
concerns. 

Cheers,

Bim



      
      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/lon
      gdesc1/longd
      > esc.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/lo
      ngdesc1/lon
      >> gdesc.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, 20 June 2014 17:46:58 UTC

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