Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
Hi everyone, On 07.01.2015 12:19, I wrote: > Besides: It does give us a competitive advantage over other browsers in > the academic space and whereever other space longdesc may be used, or > start being used once it is officially sanctioned by the W3C. To reiterate: In certain areas like education in universities and schools, Longdesc is actually being used productively. I've talked to several people who are blind or visually impaired who use this daily to either eucate others to make their graphics accessible, or use such accessible graphics to advance their own studies. The advantage we have in Firefox is that those blind or visually impaired people can tell their sighted counterparts, teachers or other students, to just right-click the image and see that the description those sighted folks wanted to provide, actually works, *without* using a screen reader. But they can use Firefox to check the validity of the accessibility they intended to put in for their blind or visually impaired comrades. So while this particular attribute is not widely used on the web -- in fact I don't remember if I ever encountered longdesc outside of Screen Reader web training pages --, it is very useful and used actively in certain corner areas of the web not everyone might regularly visit. Therefore, I vote for just leaving it as is and letting it ride the recommendation train to its destination. Marco ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Monday 2015-01-12 13:55 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote: > I'd prefer us to voice opposition in the REC transition > questionnaire. For reasons already stated in this thread, it's > probably not a good use of time to put effort into writing a long > essay for the reasons for opposition. Therefore, I suggest choosing > the opposition option on the form and just pasting the URL > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html > in the free-form field. That the Formal Objection was overruled shows > that FOs are not an effective mechanism for dealing with dysfunction > at the W3C. I don't expect our response to make a difference when it > comes to longdesc transitioning to a REC, but I think we shouldn't > stop signaling to the W3C staff that the way longdesc was handled (not > just the FO but also the way the issue was allowed to poison the HTML > WG to the point that productive contributors pretty much left the > non-Task Force parts of the WG) is not OK--especially when such > signaling is as easy as choosing an option on a form. Agreed; this is what I ended up doing. (I don't plan to put much energy into backing up the formal objection, but I agree it's good to have it on the record.) -David -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Wednesday 2015-01-07 12:19 +0100, Marco Zehe wrote: > On 07.01.2015 06:09, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: > >> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by > >> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better > >> proposal that we do support. > > Maybe Marco Zehe would be interested in removing it :-). > > I actually am not. ;) The reason is not that I care about this feature. > I honestly don't. But the noise that is to be expected from "interested > parties" if we remove the feature is going to suck so much unnecessary > energy that the cost calculation is clearly tilted towards just leaving > it in. > > Besides: It does give us a competitive advantage over other browsers in > the academic space and whereever other space longdesc may be used, or > start being used once it is officially sanctioned by the W3C. Remember > in accessibility world, the W3C word weighs much more than some on this > list might think. It's been officially sanctioned by the W3C since 1998: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40-19980424/struct/objects.html#adef-longdesc-IMG and that hasn't led to useful content using it. > We could have decided to support Apple's formal complaint to longdesc > when they published it in August[1], but we didn't. I didn't care enough > to waste energy on it, and those who now speak out against the feature > didn't appear to care much back then, either. So TBL rejected Apple's > complaint, and the extension moved to the state it is at now. In hindsight, I probably should have supported it, but I didn't want to get involved. -David -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 1:13 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the > stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ > HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) > > There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla > is one) open until January 16. > > If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the > review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition > to the specification, please say so in this thread. I think we should not voice support for this specification (for reasons already stated in this thread). As for abstention vs. opposition, I'd prefer us to voice opposition in the REC transition questionnaire. For reasons already stated in this thread, it's probably not a good use of time to put effort into writing a long essay for the reasons for opposition. Therefore, I suggest choosing the opposition option on the form and just pasting the URL http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html in the free-form field. That the Formal Objection was overruled shows that FOs are not an effective mechanism for dealing with dysfunction at the W3C. I don't expect our response to make a difference when it comes to longdesc transitioning to a REC, but I think we shouldn't stop signaling to the W3C staff that the way longdesc was handled (not just the FO but also the way the issue was allowed to poison the HTML WG to the point that productive contributors pretty much left the non-Task Force parts of the WG) is not OK--especially when such signaling is as easy as choosing an option on a form. > (I'd note, > however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make > comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues > for the first time at this stage.) I'm aware that this is boilerplate text, but in this case, it's definitely not a matter of bringing up fundamental issues first time at this stage. > (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . > I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's > "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather > galling considering that a big piece of what led to that > implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla > UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's > worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in > that fight would be to remove our implementation.) Given the circumstances, I think we shouldn't feel that we have a duty to change code in order to register opposition to the REC transition. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@hsivonen.fi https://hsivonen.fi/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On 1/7/15 6:51 PM, John Foliot wrote: > (Q: what part of openness = rejecting an attribute that many still > want to see retained? That seems very "closed" to me...) Don't confuse "open" with a democratic and/or consensus process. Open means that our decision making process is as transparent as possible (for example public mailing lists and announced team meetings that interested parties can participate in) and that the source is available under a license that allows someone else to take it and fork it if they are unhappy with our stewardship. In the end the technical leaders on the project weigh the options and make a decision. Like most people they are likely to stop listening to counter-arguments when the people on the other side start yelling at them. > Having a collective of sighted engineers telling the non-sighted > community that they don't need a feature because those same sighted > engineers had a hard time 'getting it' is, was, and remains > unacceptable. We are proud of our support for accessibility features and invest heavily in it. At least one of our non-sighted engineers has contributed to this thread and the best he could muster in support was that it wouldn't be worth the political hassle to remove it (which I find persuasive enough, but I don't have a voice in this decision). > I'm not sure about you, but I generally choose democracy over > autocracy roughly 100% of the time. Mozilla is not a democracy. Neither is the W3C. > But the "semantics" of an infographic is that a sighted person crams > a bunch of data into a "picture" and posts in on a web page using the > barely semantic element. To ensure that picture is accessible > to non-sighted users, you need to provide a text equivalent of that > picture *somewhere*, and naively thinking that designers will include > that text on the same page as the infographic flies in the face of > any design aesthetic I've ever encountered over the close-to 20 years > I've been on the web, and I challenge anyone to show me a production > website with an infographic today that does that. Solve *that* > problem, and then you can retire @longdesc - but not before. This was > the argument that won the debate at the W3C. Infographics are a horrific experience for anyone, I'll grant you that. In theory longdesc could help, but do you have any examples that demonstrate the sort of people who inflict infographics on the world would actually use longdesc? -Dan Veditz ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
RE: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
L. David Baron wrote: > > (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . > I'm also under the impression Your "impression" is wrong, and even if Firefox were to drop its implementation of @longdesc today, there are enough other implementations to meet the W3C requirement of 2 independent instances, so rather than making assumptions, get the facts. Removing existing support from Firefox however would be foolish, and hardly in keeping with the Mozilla Foundations mission statement: "At Mozilla, we're a global community of technologists, thinkers and builders working together to keep the Internet alive and accessible, so people worldwide can be informed contributors and creators of the Web. We believe this act of human collaboration across an open platform is essential to individual growth and our collective future." (Q: what part of openness = rejecting an attribute that many still want to see retained? That seems very "closed" to me...) > that they're using Mozilla's > "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather > galling considering that a big piece of what led to that > implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla > UX designer to get the feature accepted. Using Mozilla's up-voting of bugs is only "harassment" when you disagree with the bug. There were many sincere and intelligent people and organizations that supported the reinstatement of the attribute, and there remain some today saddened that the final result appeared half-hearted. None-the-less, Firefox now provides support for the majority of the primary target audience (screen reader users), while partially ignoring other user-groups that might also benefit from the longer text descriptions provided via @longdesc. (Does it come as such a surprise that even the accessibility community will accept am 80/20 solution sometimes?) That support BTW will also allow Firefox to continue to claim a high level of HTML5 conformance (https://html5test.com/results/desktop.html), certainly higher/better than Safari, currently the only mainstream desktop browser to *NOT* support @longdesc (and with VoiceOver, currently the only mainstream screen-reader to not support @longdesc). Finally, I'll even go so far as to suggest that if you improved your support for @longdesc, it might be yet another differentiator for choosing Firefox, an issue I know your Robert O'Callahan is quite concerned about: http://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.htm l > I'm not sure how much it's > worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in > that fight would be to remove our implementation.) Meanwhile, Jonas Sicking wrote: > > I tried winning this fight, but found it not worth my time. The problem > was that even after getting this feature removed from W3C specs once, Ian Hickson's ham-fisted approach to this attribute, and accessibility in general, was never seen as 'welcome' or appreciated by many inside of the W3C, and his antics continue to frustrate many, even today. For the record, @longdesc was never "removed" from a W3C spec, it just took longer to get it added to the W3C HTML5 spec (and still remains today a valid HTML4 / XHMTL 1 attribute). The cool kids might continue to think that the WHAT WG is still all that, but outside of the rarified air of that echo chamber, the majority of the world still looks to the W3C as the definitive source, in part because their process is both open and fair, and not controlled by a single entity. > the proponents of it simply harassed people again and again until it > got added back to the HTML spec. I guess it got removed again and yet > again they were able to get it back. Your recollection of the history is incorrect - and please, take it from somebody sitting ring-side (when I wasn't actually in the ring). @Longdesc was finally added to W3C's HTML5 because, despite multiple claims that is wasn't whatever opponents thought it should be, no-one was ever able to address all of the extremely complete and well-documented use-cases with any other robust solution - including Apple. Having a collective of sighted engineers telling the non-sighted community that they don't need a feature because those same sighted engineers had a hard time 'getting it' is, was, and remains unacceptable. > > The W3C process is clearly not robust enough that we can prevent this > type of stuff form making it into a spec. That of course is a matter of perspective and opinion. It could also be argued that the W3C Process saved a valuable accessibility attribute from being discarded by a group of engineers who failed to grasp the need for the attribute in the first place, or were swayed by the cult-of-personality of Hixie, who didn't like @longdesc, so being "King of the World" he tossed it aside. W3C Process ensured that the pros and cons of retaining ve
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:19 AM, Marco Zehe wrote: > My recommendation: Take a deep breath, and move on to more important things. Yeah, I agree with this. We should treat this as a learning experience and suck up having to maintain the relatively small implementation. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . > I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's > "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather > galling considering that a big piece of what led to that > implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla > UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's > worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in > that fight would be to remove our implementation.) I tried winning this fight, but found it not worth my time. The problem was that even after getting this feature removed from W3C specs once, the proponents of it simply harassed people again and again until it got added back to the HTML spec. I guess it got removed again and yet again they were able to get it back. The W3C process is clearly not robust enough that we can prevent this type of stuff form making it into a spec. So I agree that the best tool we have at our disposal is to simply refuse to implement, or in this case remove our, as I understand it largely useless, implementation. It's sad that people are spending time on features like this when there are far bigger accessibility problems with the web platform. The fact that native platforms, especially iOS, has caught up and surpassed the web when it comes to delivering accessibility "built in by default" is a sad state of affairs. The fact that the web was based on a semantic language like HTML was always supposed to deliver a strong accessibility story. Sadly it has for authors become easier to deliver beautiful websites if they simply create an endless pile of s than if they actually use semantic markup. That would be a great problem to try to attack. / Jonas ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
JW, Robin, Le 7 janv. 2015 ร 13:30, Robin Berjon a รฉcrit : > No, it's not. View Image Info is always present for images, View Description > is only afforded if there is a longdesc attribute. See here for example http://nota-bene.org/Petit-photographe -- Karl Dubost, Mozilla http://www.la-grange.net/karl/moz ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On 07/01/2015 13:23 , JW Clements wrote: If "View Description" is the same as "View Image Info" then be advised that I use this fairly frequently. Therefore the claim that there's ZERO clicks is extremely inaccurate. No, it's not. View Image Info is always present for images, View Description is only afforded if there is a longdesc attribute. Honestly, I'm not sure how many people know that who aren't either on this list or involved in standards somehow. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:45:31 -0800 From: Justin Dolske To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org Subject: Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed On 1/6/15 6:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: > The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by > disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better > proposal that we do support. I'd be really curious to see if this is actually being used by anyone. We're already recording telemetry for context menu usage, so we should already have data on how often the context-viewimagedesc entry is clicked... Blake Winton can get current data, but poking through an older data set it seems to have low usage. I don't know what period this older data covers, but as a relative comparison I see 7 million "Open Link in New Tab" clicks, 930K "Save Image" clicks, 5K "Set as Desktop Background", and zero "View Description" (ie, longdesc) clicks. Justin -- If "View Description" is the same as "View Image Info" then be advised that I use this fairly frequently. Therefore the claim that there's ZERO clicks is extremely inaccurate. J ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
Hi folks, On 07.01.2015 06:09, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: >> The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by >> disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better >> proposal that we do support. > Maybe Marco Zehe would be interested in removing it :-). I actually am not. ;) The reason is not that I care about this feature. I honestly don't. But the noise that is to be expected from "interested parties" if we remove the feature is going to suck so much unnecessary energy that the cost calculation is clearly tilted towards just leaving it in. Besides: It does give us a competitive advantage over other browsers in the academic space and whereever other space longdesc may be used, or start being used once it is officially sanctioned by the W3C. Remember in accessibility world, the W3C word weighs much more than some on this list might think. We could have decided to support Apple's formal complaint to longdesc when they published it in August[1], but we didn't. I didn't care enough to waste energy on it, and those who now speak out against the feature didn't appear to care much back then, either. So TBL rejected Apple's complaint, and the extension moved to the state it is at now. My recommendation: Take a deep breath, and move on to more important things. Marco [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 AM, Jet Villegas wrote: > The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by > disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better > proposal that we do support. As dbaron said that was also the main reason it got added. Fear-driven development does not seem like something we should be in the business of supporting. -- https://annevankesteren.nl/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: > The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by > disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better > proposal that we do support. > Maybe Marco Zehe would be interested in removing it :-). Rob -- oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o oโoRoaocoao,oโo oioso oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo owohooo osoaoyoso,o oโoYooouo ofolo!oโo owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro ooofo otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On 1/6/15 6:37 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better proposal that we do support. I'd be really curious to see if this is actually being used by anyone. We're already recording telemetry for context menu usage, so we should already have data on how often the context-viewimagedesc entry is clicked... Blake Winton can get current data, but poking through an older data set it seems to have low usage. I don't know what period this older data covers, but as a relative comparison I see 7 million "Open Link in New Tab" clicks, 930K "Save Image" clicks, 5K "Set as Desktop Background", and zero "View Description" (ie, longdesc) clicks. Justin ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
The main downside I see is a potential "Mozilla removes features used by disabled people..." PR fiasco. I think we can avoid that with a better proposal that we do support. On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Gavin Sharp wrote: > What downsides do you see? > > Gavin > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jet Villegas > wrote: > > The current Firefox implementation via a context-menu item (presumably > > available to screen readers) seems innocuous to me. While I agree with > many > > of the points objecting to the spec, I don't see much upside for us (and > > plenty of downside) to deprecating the feature without a > counter-proposal. > > > > --Jet > > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > > wrote: > > > >> On 2015-01-06 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> > >>> (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see > >>> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . > >>> I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's > >>> "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather > >>> galling considering that a big piece of what led to that > >>> implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla > >>> UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's > >>> worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in > >>> that fight would be to remove our implementation.) > >>> > >> > >> Is there any reason to not remove our implementation? > >> > >> ___ > >> dev-platform mailing list > >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > >> > > ___ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
What downsides do you see? Gavin On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Jet Villegas wrote: > The current Firefox implementation via a context-menu item (presumably > available to screen readers) seems innocuous to me. While I agree with many > of the points objecting to the spec, I don't see much upside for us (and > plenty of downside) to deprecating the feature without a counter-proposal. > > --Jet > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> On 2015-01-06 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> >>> (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see >>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . >>> I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's >>> "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather >>> galling considering that a big piece of what led to that >>> implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla >>> UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's >>> worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in >>> that fight would be to remove our implementation.) >>> >> >> Is there any reason to not remove our implementation? >> >> ___ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
The current Firefox implementation via a context-menu item (presumably available to screen readers) seems innocuous to me. While I agree with many of the points objecting to the spec, I don't see much upside for us (and plenty of downside) to deprecating the feature without a counter-proposal. --Jet On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2015-01-06 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . >> I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's >> "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather >> galling considering that a big piece of what led to that >> implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla >> UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's >> worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in >> that fight would be to remove our implementation.) >> > > Is there any reason to not remove our implementation? > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
On 2015-01-06 6:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather galling considering that a big piece of what led to that implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in that fight would be to remove our implementation.) Is there any reason to not remove our implementation? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
W3C Proposed Recommendation: longdesc
W3C recently published the following proposed recommendation (the stage before W3C's final stage, Recommendation): http://www.w3.org/TR/html-longdesc/ HTML5 Image Description Extension (longdesc) There's a call for review to W3C member companies (of which Mozilla is one) open until January 16. If there are comments you think Mozilla should send as part of the review, or if you think Mozilla should voice support or opposition to the specification, please say so in this thread. (I'd note, however, that there have been many previous opportunities to make comments, so it's somewhat bad form to bring up fundamental issues for the first time at this stage.) (I'm not happy about this spec; for a good description of why, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html . I'm also under the impression that they're using Mozilla's "implementation" of it as support for the spec, which is rather galling considering that a big piece of what led to that implementation was an online harrassment campaign against a Mozilla UX designer to get the feature accepted. I'm not sure how much it's worth fighting it at this point, although probably a first step in that fight would be to remove our implementation.) -David -- ๐ L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ ๐ ๐ข Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ ๐ Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
