This Wiki page is edited by participants of the HTML Accessibility Task Force. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Task Force participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

Difference between revisions of "Longdesc-comments"

From HTML accessibility task force Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Andrew Kirkpatrick (Friday, 23 August))
(s/relying/rely)
Line 40: Line 40:
 
==== Proposed response to James and Mathew ====
 
==== Proposed response to James and Mathew ====
  
The use of longdesc is not ipso facto inappropriate in these cases, as it provides discoverability, and in certain situations provides access that is otherwise unavailable. However, it is clearly inappropriate to simply relying on longdesc instead of, for example, providing a MathML version of mathematical content, or ensuring that an SVG image uses the accessibility features of the format.
+
The use of longdesc is not ipso facto inappropriate in these cases, as it provides discoverability, and in certain situations provides access that is otherwise unavailable. However, it is clearly inappropriate to simply rely on longdesc instead of, for example, providing a MathML version of mathematical content, or ensuring that an SVG image uses the accessibility features of the format.
  
 
A statement to that effect should be added as informative advice in the section on Authoring requirements.
 
A statement to that effect should be added as informative advice in the section on Authoring requirements.

Revision as of 13:49, 26 September 2013

Last Call Comments

Guy Moreau (Tuesday, 16 July)

Bug 23287 strengthen requirement for user access to longdesc

Proposed response to Guy

No. Constraining user intereaction too much is probably a bad idea before we have much experience. There are also viable implementation strategies which use an interaction very different to that of ordinary links (e.g. the interaction in the Tell Me More extension).

Richards, Jan (Tuesday, 16 July)

Bug 23288 Reference for Authoring and Repair

James Craig (Tuesday, 16 July)

Bug 23291 add statements about when longdesc is inapproppriate

Related discussion on MathML

Related discussion on SVG Accessibility

Proposed response to James and Mathew

The use of longdesc is not ipso facto inappropriate in these cases, as it provides discoverability, and in certain situations provides access that is otherwise unavailable. However, it is clearly inappropriate to simply rely on longdesc instead of, for example, providing a MathML version of mathematical content, or ensuring that an SVG image uses the accessibility features of the format.

A statement to that effect should be added as informative advice in the section on Authoring requirements.

Matthew Turvey (Tuesday, 16 July)

Bug 23291 add statements about when longdesc is inapproppriate - See above

Andrew Kirkpatrick (Friday, 23 August)

Bug 23293 Require descriptions which are not while documents to be well-formed fragments

Bug 23292 User agent requirements for handling same page references

Proposed response

There is a suggestion in the document (*should*) that authors make descriptions well-formed fragments, but there is currently no corresponding requirement on user agents. For now, we will simply leave it as a best practice

Shawn Henry/EOWG (Monday, 16 September)

Bug 23289 Suggested editorial fixes from EOWG

Charles McCathie Nevile (Monday, 16 September)

Bug 23290 Additional use case for discoverability of long descriptions

Proposed Response to Yandex

Yes --Charles McCathie Nevile 14:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Old bugs