RE: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

Hi Steve, Laura,

I can understand both points but the basic issue in the discussion seems to be really unsatisfying complete cross-browser longdesc support one tends to emphasize and the other to underplay.

So, for me the question now is more if the new approach (aria-describedat) would be the chance for a redo of support in broader scope, making the entire longdesc discussion obsolete in the long run.

Chances are that this will work because of the broader / general applicability of the aria-describedat property (as far as I was able to follow the discussion) and the fact that ARIA already gains so much acceptance both from browser vendors and the dev community, so that quick cross-browser support for it will be likely.

Therefore,


·         For  ARIA 1.1 (not 1.0 anymore), the aria-describedat property should be verbalized/formalized ASAP

·         There should be high pressure already during 2012 on talks with the AT and UA vendors for early support implementations available until end of the year

·         For the time being, longdesc could  remain as part of the HTML5 spec with unchanged usage statements (to address Laura's warning issue)

·         When solid AT/UA support for aria-describedat is there, the longdesc  "conforming but obsolete declaration"  will be appropriate and pointing to the newer recommended technique (using aria- describedat) then makes sense

Regards
Stefan

From: Steve Faulkner [mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.com]
Sent: Freitag, 9. März 2012 11:49
To: Laura Carlson
Cc: W3C WAI-XTECH; HTML Accessibility Task Force; Michael(tm) Smith; Janina Sajka; Judy Brewer
Subject: Re: Drop longdesc, get aria-describedat?

Hi laura, thanks for the references.

Why obsolete but conforming is OK for me.

 *   Support for longdesc in browsers and AT is poor and has been so for many years.

 *   Adding a longdesc without an alternative method of access to the long description results in many users with disabilities being unable to access the content or even being aware that the content is there.
regards
Stevef

On 8 March 2012 18:06, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com<mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Steve,

> "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. Others may have other views."
>
> I  find that to be an acceptable compromise.
First, two references:

1. Regarding conforming but with a warning the HTML Chairs' Decision
on ISSUE-30, stated:
"The weakest proposal was the one that makes longdesc conforming but
with a warning...there was a strong argument which is unique to this
proposal: if longdesc is conforming, user agents will be required to
support it; if there is a validator warning, users will be discouraged
from using it. This combination is the worst of all possibilities.
Eliminating this proposal early made the process of coming to a
resolution simpler." [1]

2. Obsolete but conforming features trigger HTML5 warnings with advice
to use a specific and different solution. [2]

Now, why obsolete but conforming is unacceptable to me:

A warning for a proper longdesc is simply wrong. People should not be
reprimanded for doing the right thing. On the contrary, they should be
applauded.

It has been substantially evidenced via the documentation of over
fourteen hundred real world examples of longdesc that authors do
indeed use this attribute in practice to improve accessibility. This
is a non-negligible number of examples that utilize longdesc in
meaningful ways. All of the images in those examples would be
significantly less accessible (some even totally inaccessible) without
it.

Breaking both compatibility with existing best practice (and
documentation of the same), as well as requiring a wide range of
tools, content, and authoring guidance to be updated in order to
achieve compatibility with a replacement for longdesc - for something
meant to solve the SAME problem, is an intolerable cost. It would be
an illogical undue burden and unacceptable to authors and
organizations that have already made investments in the use of
longdesc.

Longdesc solves problems and makes things better. Other proposed
solutions do not meet requirements and do not have an existing
critical support base of tools and educational materials.

Longdesc strengthens the language. Other techniques are either
nonexistent, retrograde, or makeshift substitutes that do not directly
provide the valuable semantics and critical backwards compatibility
that longdesc does. No better technical solution exists.

People with disabilities would be the losers if longdesc were made
obsolete but conforming. It would be an unnecessary atrocity on
authors and users with disabilities.

Best Regards,
Laura

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/obsolete.html#obsolete-but-conforming-features


--
Laura L. Carlson



--
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com<http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.HTML5accessibility.com<http://www.HTML5accessibility.com> | www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner<http://www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner>
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/<http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/>
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
<http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html>