Re: aria-describedat?

Joseph Scheuhammer <[email protected]> wrote:
 
> I've wondered that if aria-describedby == accDescription, then what
> does longdesc correspond to?  Exposing it as an accessible action
> makes sense, since the user experience is to go to another page for
> the description.  It acts like a link (sort of).

Disclosing it as an accessible action, if I understand the API correctly,
should also be compatible with the case in which the image is a link and also
possesses an @longdesc or @aria-describedat (whichever is adopted) attribute.

Of course, it's then the responsibility of the AT to present the description
action appropriately, but that's a straightforward matter of implementation.

I would argue that the HTML and PF WGs should specify either @longdesc or
@aria-describedat, but not both; we don't want authors to use both attributes
with URIs that, inadvertently perhaps, refer to different resources.

My broader attitude to this entire issue is in line with Charles
McCathieNevile's position, but I also worry that the attention and debate whic
it is generating are disproportionate to the importance of the problem. I
think this focus on @longdesc risks deflecting resources away from larger
concerns affecting HTML 5, such as the discussion about the proper use and
accessibility implications of CANVAS.