RE: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

Hi Geoff,

At 01:21 AM 3/8/2012 +0000, Geoff Freed wrote:

>Hi, Leif, Judy and everyone:
>Apologies for jumping in late.  I haven't read all the messages in 
>this thread yet, but at the risk of repeating what someone may have 
>already pointed out, take note that the DIAGRAM project 
>( has begun coordinating with the EPUB 
>working group on an epub:describedAt attribute for image descriptions:
>Before going down the CG path, or any other W3C path, I suggest you 
>take a look here first and then see how we can coordinate with the 
>work that DIAGRAM has already begun.

I'm aware that the DIAGRAM project has been looking into this, and I 
believe that Janina may be aware as well from some of the discussions 
with IDPF. I suggest that you coordinate with her as PFWG Chair, and 
with the ARIA Task Force that is under PFWG, as there are a number of 
requirements that need to be considered together in the design for it 
to eventual work smoothly in multiple areas.

Thank you,

- Judy

>From: Judy Brewer []
>Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 7:42 PM
>To: Leif Halvard Silli; Silvia Pfeiffer
>Cc: Richard Schwerdtfeger; W3C WAI-XTECH; HTML Accessibility Task Force
>Subject: Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?
>At 01:11 AM 3/8/2012 +0100, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> >Silvia Pfeiffer, Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:45:55 +1100:
> > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Janina Sajka <> wrote:
> >
> > > This is why I am suggesting a Community Group. A CG
> >
> > >> My druthers would be to accept longdesc right away and call it obsolete
> > >> but conforming. That clearly signals that a replacement is expected
> > >> while providing needed functionality right away--the same it has been
> > >> available since html 4. As I said, this is my
> > >> preference.
> > >
> > > I agree with this. Doing this and in parallel creating a CG on
> > > aria-describedat that takes on the requirements already collected in
> > > Epub would IMO provide the fastest way forward.
> >
> >How do we get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming' + a CG for
> >describedAT? Can this be expressed as a change proposal? And what if we
> >do not get consensus for 'obsolete but conforming', do we then *not*
> >create the community group?
>I suggest you come to an HTML A11Y meeting for discussion; the next
>one is scheduled for March 15th, due to other accessibility meetings
>and conferences this week; or better yet to the text alternatives
>sub-team meeting (next one should be March 13th and I am happy to put
>this on the agenda) where we had been exploring this specific
>category of issues in more depth. Also, please note that there has
>been heavy discussion around many approaches on this already, and the
>multiple delays by the HTML WG on processing the longdesc change
>proposal may at this point themselves be contributing to the
>confusion regarding alternative solutions on this question. The
>TF-supported change proposal on longdesc is still overdue for a fair
>hearing; getting another change proposal considered ahead of that
>would be bad process.
>As for a community group approach, note that that does nothing to
>actually standardize anything, only to explore an issue. Creating a
>community group for aria-describedat outside of the people who've
>been working most directly on developing ARIA, and already thinking
>about aria-describedat in some depth, could slow rather than speed
>things up, or at best not materially change the timeline.
> >Meanwhile, another option: What if HTML5 simply was silent on @longdesc
> >... I mean: If we want to reuse @longdesc in ARIA - rather than
> >creating a new @aria-describedAT, then HTML5 should not say that it is
> >obsolete and should as well, not say that it is conforming - until it
> >has been defined.
>Another option is to add your voice to requesting that the
>TF-supported longdesc proposal actually gets direct consideration and
>fair hearing under the HTML WG decision policy, as is supposedly
>imminent; though previous indications of imminence haven't yet borne
>- Judy
> >--
> >Leif H Silli

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 05:33:15 UTC