Change Proposal for not including longdesc="" - Revision history

GPHemsley: added Category:Proposals using HotCat

2013-07-09T14:32:54Z

2010-07-21T21:34:13Z

added link to issue 30

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 21 July 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:

	(This does not affect conformance criteria for implementations.)		(This does not affect conformance criteria for implementations.)

			See related: [http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/30 Issue 30].

	== Rationale ==		== Rationale ==

2010-07-12T23:30:09Z

Open Poll Closes 2010-06-30: poll closed

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:30, 12 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== ~~<strong style="color:red">Open~~ Poll ~~Closes~~ 2010-06-30~~</strong>~~ ==		== Poll Closed 2010-06-30 ==
	~~Please submit your objections~~ to longdesc in this poll ~~(which closes <strong>very soon</strong>)~~		Objections to longdesc documented in this poll:

	http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-30-objection-poll/		http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-30-objection-poll/

	~~as well as adding them~~ to this wiki page.		Feel free to add more to this wiki page.

	== Summary ==		== Summary ==

2010-06-27T00:33:07Z

note related poll that closes very soon

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 27 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== <strong style="color:red">Open Poll Closes 2010-06-30</strong> ==
			Please submit your objections to longdesc in this poll (which closes <strong>very soon</strong>)

			http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-30-objection-poll/

			as well as adding them to this wiki page.

	== Summary ==		== Summary ==

2010-06-27T00:22:47Z

link longdesc

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 27 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Summary ==		== Summary ==

	The longdesc="" attribute does not improve accessibility in practice and should not be included in the language.		The [[longdesc]]="" attribute does not improve accessibility in practice and should not be included in the language.

	(This does not affect conformance criteria for implementations.)		(This does not affect conformance criteria for implementations.)

2010-06-27T00:10:47Z

Rationale: added a number of new reasons to reject longdesc, and headings

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 == Rationale ==
 Several studies have been performed. They have shown that:
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 * Users that try to use longdesc="" find it doesn't work ("Who uses this kind of thing? In my experience [...] it just didn't work. There was no description.") [http://www.cfit.ie/html5_video/Longdesc_IDC.wmv].
 Furthermore, there already exist a number of alternative mechanisms for providing information to users without using longdesc="", such as simply including the information inline, providing explicit links to long descriptions, and using ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby="".
 Some accessibility experts have indicated that the longdesc="" attribute has been problematic:
@@ Line 24: / Line 27: @@
 Including the longdesc="" attribute in the language therefore seems like a poor design decision.
 === Counter-arguments ===

2010-02-22T21:06:53Z

Summary

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:06, 22 February 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	The longdesc="" attribute does not improve accessibility in practice and should not be included in the language.		The longdesc="" attribute does not improve accessibility in practice and should not be included in the language.

			(This does not affect conformance criteria for implementations.)

	== Rationale ==		== Rationale ==

2010-02-22T21:02:50Z

Risks

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:02, 22 February 2010
Line 59:		Line 59:
	=== Risks ===		=== Risks ===

	* ?		* If the data collected is not representative of actual Web content, then we could be removing a valuable accessibility aid.
			** The probability of this is very low given the volume of data collected.
			** The cost to fix this once discovered is minimal.

	== References ==		== References ==

	Links included inline.		Links included inline.

2010-02-22T21:01:33Z

Negative Effects

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:01, 22 February 2010
Line 47:		Line 47:
	=== Negative Effects ===		=== Negative Effects ===

	* ?		* May harm the reputation of people who designed longdesc="" in the first place.

	=== Conformance Classes Changes ===		=== Conformance Classes Changes ===

2010-02-22T21:00:28Z

Counter-arguments

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 22 February 2010
Line 25:		Line 25:
	=== Counter-arguments ===		=== Counter-arguments ===

	* It is argued that the user quoted above later retracted his comments and agreed that longdesc="" descriptions are useful. A careful examination of the video shows that the user never retracts their initial statement (which concerned their actual experience with the attribute in the wild), and only agreed with the facilitator regarding the theoretical value of the attribute ~~''when~~ used ~~correctly''~~. However, this value is hardly ever realised in practice, as described by the data above.		* It is argued that the user quoted above later retracted his comments and agreed that longdesc="" descriptions are useful. A careful examination of the video shows that the user never retracts their initial statement (which concerned their actual experience with the attribute in the wild), and only agreed with the facilitator regarding the theoretical value of the attribute _when used correctly_. However, this value is hardly ever realised in practice, as described by the data above.

	* It is argued that since some pages use longdesc="" correctly, it would be bad to make the attribute non-conforming.		* It is argued that since some pages use longdesc="" correctly, it would be bad to make the attribute non-conforming.