>>>>I must respectfully disagree with Mattur here. His solution, Kyle, to the question you posed to me on twitter would be that all of the dialog contained in your cartoon should be included as “in the clear” text on the same page of as the cartoon. Go, read his comments and Mr. Pilgrim’s… that is their proposed solution.>>>>

@Kyle Weems said on June 16th, 2009 at 6:12 pm:

>>>>@John & mattur – Just so I understand, the solution of text “in the clear” that Pilgrim and Mattur propose in his linked post is placing all the descriptive text of the image on the page itself? That seems clunky, design unfriendly and in many cases downright distracting for sighted web users.>>>>

Kyle, there is no problem with including long descriptive text inline; css can be used to hide it so that sighted readers don’t trip over it, whilst non-visual readers, who don’t currently depend on css, will hear it via their screen reader or read it via their Braille display.

This one, sadly, seems to be one where the heat created by the controversy is greater than the factual content of the controversy.

That was wrong and I apologize.

I look forward to hearing what Mattur’s actual positions are, beyond appearing to whole-heartedly agree with the WHAT WG when it comes to ignoring expert opinion, rejecting consensus, and thinking that “…aria-describedby is too complex…”

Mattur:
* Do you support and endorse the WAI CG document?
* Do you believe that the WAI CG document should be the final word in the issues of long and short text alternatives in the Draft HTML 5 document?
* Do you support and endorse the W3C process of consensus when it comes to creating the next generation HTML?
* Do you endorse or reject Ian Hickson’s statement: “The HTML5 work isn’t using the traditional W3C approach, and will never use a consensus approach so long as I am editor.” [ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jul/0354.html ]?
* When appropriate, will *you* use aria-describedby to label your complex images, or do you too find it “too complex” for daily use?

Mattur, for clarity my answers are yes, yes, yes, reject, and yes.

Yes, a year ago I wrote that deprecating longdesc was silly – I still think that way (as I believe the attribute is not flawed, but rather we’ve done an extremely poor job teaching proper implementation), but since that time the overall web accessibility community has discussed practical alternatives to longdesc (aria-describedby); conversations that I have been a contributor to BTW, and subsequently a new “community” position has emerged based upon those discussions – the one now articulated in the W3C CG document, which I’ve already publicly endorsed (a year after that ‘smoking gun’ blog posting of mine that Mattur pointed to).

However, it should also be stated that the WAI document attaches some *specific conditions* to the deprecation of longdesc:
* IF
o aria-describedby is incorporated in HTML5
o and aria-describedby allows pointing to long text alternatives that are off of the page (by pointing to a link on the page)
* THEN
o we believe it is acceptable to obsolete longdesc in HTML5.
[ http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 ]

This is not my personal best option, but one that is palatable to me, so long as the IF conditions are met *as described*. It is also represents a compromise position (at least for me personally) based upon informed discussion and debate amongst web accessibility experts and professionals whom I respect, as well as end users directly affected by this recommendation. It is also in marked contrast to how the WHAT WG cabal have rolled out their non-debatable ideas on ensuring “accessibility”…

(Meanwhile, at least one WHAT WG cabal member states: “I don’t see aria-describedby becoming much of a success – It seems way too complex for everyday use” [ http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090611#l-69 ]: apparently <img src=”" alt=”short alternative” aria-describedby=”path to longer description” /> is too ‘complicated’ for some WHAT WG members… )

SO, for absolute clarification, as Mattur seems to have a real hard grasping these things: I believe that longdesc should not be deprecated, but instead should continue to exist, while a newer (perhaps better) method be introduced (aria-describedby). This idea BTW, is one that I share with my friend (and Opera’s Chief Standards Officer) Charles McCathieNevile:

“It seems to me that we should be far less hasty to remove things from HTML which were designed to support accessibility – and far more hasty to work on adding an alternative which is better, in order to actually field test the two side by side for long enough to understand which of our assumptions were brilliant insights and which were foolishness…”
[ http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0275.html ]

HOWEVER, despite my personal reservations, I continue to support and endorse the W3C CG document when it comes to “Recommendations regarding Long Text Alternatives” as I recognize it as a consensus document arrived at by my peers, and it is a consensus position that I can live with.

I’ve already discussed my position (and contributions) to @alt earlier, so what point then are are you ultimately trying to prove? That I (unlike others on the other side of the discussion) am actually less dogmatic than the WHAT WG Cabal, who insist that they have a lock on the one truth, and all others are infidels? ‘Cause that sure seems to be the case here: I’ve moved, they won’t. That John Foliot can accept the collective wisdom and debate/discussion of other Web Accessibility experts and actually move on his initial opinion? (unlike the WHAT WG – who refuse to accept *any* expert opinion from outside their small group of buddies?) Guilty as charged! (like this is a bad thing?)

Anything else you are unclear on Mattur?

The idea of refusing to require an alternate text for an image is nonsense, of course. We now have several methods beyond ALT, and even in the era of HTML 4 we had more options even than just ALT.

The WAI CG recommended making alt optional and obsoleting longdesc, as in the current HTML5 draft.

So either expert opinions vary on the best way to provide accessibility features, or you’re not an expert, or the WAI CG aren’t experts. Which is it?

You once again make claims based upon your perception… please back up your claims with URLs will you? I hardly feel foolish – it is worth pointing out that while hangers-on like you deem to take pot-shots from the sidelines, the current proposed solution for alternative text for images [ http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 ] is in fact based upon an idea that I first articulated in an email, as documented here: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/IssueAltAttribute (Now who looks foolish?)

What I *have* spent the last two years doing is shining the light on the fact that the HTML 5 Working Group has made sweeping claims and changes to items specifically related to web accessibility, without properly consulting the affected community and those who work directly in that community. They have wholesale removed existing attributes from HTML 4 that were created to enhance accessibility without providing suitable replacements, all the while continuing to support presentational artifacts such as the bold and italic ‘tags’, and introducing half-baked new elements such as canvas that have zero accessibility considerations included. (an identified and acknowledged ‘problem’) Despite repeated requests to share with the web accessibility community both the hard data that they allegedly base all of these decisions on, as well as multiple requests to share with us *whom* they have in fact consulted with, neither has been provided – what we see instead is a small group of non-disabled technologists ‘deciding’ the best solutions to existing problems and dictating to the affected communities “this is how it is” (or in the case of canvas, simply not thinking about or addressing the potential problems that were obvious to the web accessibility community the first time they saw canvas). It is worth noting as well, that it is not only the web accessibility community that has issues with the HTML5 processes and procedures, but also other communities such as the RDFa community, and to a lesser extent SVG community.

I make no apologies for being a vocal and outspoken critic of this process, and of many of the ill-informed decisions that this small group makes: however, in every instance I back my claims with 3rd party URLs, studies and external documentation – I *never* simply insist that others take *my* word for it. Mattur, can you say the same? While I quote facts, you are reduced to calling me names. Got it. (And, I will presume, so do the other readers)

1) Methods of Providing a Long Description

There are several ways of providing a long description for images. These options are listed below, in order of most preferred to least preferred:

1. Provide the long description in the context of the document itself
2. Provide a link to a long description via a normal text link
3. Provide a link to a long description via the longdesc attribute
4. Provide a link to a long description via a “d” link

[Source: WebAIM - http://tinyurl.com/qp4hv - Mattur, please note #3]

***********

2) Complex images are images whose full meaning cannot be adequately described in a short phrase or sentence. This may include graphs, charts and maps.

A brief name or description should be given in the ALT text, and a longer description of the content of the image given elsewhere. There are a variety of ways in which this can be achieved. A text description can be given on the same page, or linked to, from the image or the page. The ALT text for the image could then be “Office layout, see description below”. LONGDESC can also be used but note that not all browsers use the “longdesc” attribute. Finally, a “D” link can be used.

[Source: RNIB - http://tinyurl.com/l6o5zw - again Mattur, please note suggestion #3]

***********

“The true accessibility method for a complex image may be a tactile graphic.” (Say what? – JF)
[Source: Joe Clark - http://tinyurl.com/25a382 ]

“Quite simply, I want it all, and so should you. Give us everything you’ve got. Give us everything there is to give.”
[Source: Joe Clark - http://tinyurl.com/lvk38n ]

“Waxing poetic: Long descriptions

When alt and title are insufficient to embody the visual qualities of an image in words, HTML offers an access feature at a higher level of complexity: longdesc.

A longdesc is a long description of an image. How long? The sky’s the limit. longdesc is meant for pictures worth more than a thousand words (or 1,024 characters). The aim is to use any length of description necessary to impart the details of the graphic. It would not be remiss to hope that a long description conjures an image – the image – in the mind’s eye, an analogy that holds true even for the totally blind.”

[Source: Joe Clark - http://tinyurl.com/yhv9ex ]

All valid, credible opinions to me Mattur.

And besides, you miss the point: You claim that “…they *disagree* with *some* accessibility experts. Opinions vary on the best way to provide accessibility features….” And so, once again, which accessibility experts *DO* agree with the HTML5 WG on their vision of the “best way to provide accessibility features”?

CAN WE HAVE SOME NAMES PLEASE?

Regarding the WAI CG – I fully endorse the latest recommendation put forth by the WAI CG to the HTML5 WG on their “Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5″ [ http://www.w3.org/2009/06/Text-Alternatives-in-HTML5 ] – it remains to be seen whether the HTML5 WG will accept this expert guidance, given that it *is* the culmination of the hard work of 4 different W3C Accessibility Working Groups – groups that include technologists, advocates, and DISABLED USERS. Or will it be received with typical WHAT WG arrogance: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/html-wg/20090611 (posted without further comment)