- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:21:16 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Chaals, > I am a person who supports, in the long term, deprecating longdesc. I am not. longdesc is needed and ARIA is needed. A difference skill set exists between JavaScript-Library/app developers and the run of the mill content authors/web designers. Advanced skill set verses basic skill set. One group may learn ARIA to develop "Accessible Rich Internet Applications" the other will use basic HTML to put up a web page or a web site. It gets back to what Cliff was talking about and what you said about people having to read another large spec besides HTML5. I too experience the same thing all too frequently here at my job. Content authors may know basic HTML and be willing to put in longdesc for complex images but they are not going to delve into other specs. ARIA is not an option for these authors. If content is to be made accessible by both groups of authors we need both mechanisms. Anything else is a false choice and binary thinking. longdesc is a useful tool that helps ordinary authors make content accessible. Related solutions do not negate the need for longdesc [1]. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc/RelatedSolutionsDontNegateNeed -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 17:21:52 UTC