Re: [office] Important question from Accessibility SC

[Michael Brauer <Michael.Brauer@Sun.COM>]

Rich,

the "Final Proposal Adressing alternative text" you have posted on the 
accessibility SC mailing list sounds goot to me. The only remark I have 
is that you sometimes refer to <svg:title> and <svg:desc> as attributes 
rather than elements.

Please let me know when the Accessibility SC has agreed on the propsal, 
so that the OpenDocument TC itself may agree on it as well.

Best regards

Michael

Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the proposal I am putting together.
> 
> svg:title for alt text (short name)
> svg:desc for long description/help text
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist
> Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review  Board
> blog: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=441
> 
> "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
> I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
> Frost
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                        
>              Robert                                                    
>              Weir/Cambridge/IB                                         
>              M@LOTUS                                                    To
>                                        Nathaniel S Borenstein          
>              04/26/2006 12:15          <nborenst@us.ibm.com>           
>              PM                                                         cc
>                                        office@lists.oasis-open.org,    
>                                        Peter.Korn@Sun.COM, Richard     
>                                        Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        Re: [office] Important question 
>                                        from Accessibility SC(Document  
>                                        link: Richard Schwerdtfeger)    
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, it would be good to have something which we can point to and say that
> this is the unambiguous way to represent alt or long-desc text throughout
> the specification.  It would be more intuitive as well as easier for
> tooling.
> 
> What makes this more confusing is that I'm not sure current implementations
> use svg:desc right.  Take a look at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/struct.html#DescElement.  From the examples there,
> it looks like svg;title maps more to XHTML's alt text, and svg;desc is the
> more in-depth text, like XHTML's long-desc.    However, in the ODF
> implementations I've seen, svg:desc is being used for the short description
> and there is no facility for the long descriptions.  So, it would be good
> to have both facilities and make it clear which is intended where.
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> Nathaniel S Borenstein <nborenst@us.ibm.com> wrote on 04/26/2006 10:55:35
> AM:
> 
> 
>>The accessibility committee has a question that it wishes to pose to
>>the full TC.
>>
>>There are several places where ODF currently lacks a way to specify
>>an alternative textual description of a non-textual object.  In such
>>cases, we could either invent a new tag or reuse an existing tag in
>>what seems (to us) to be a reasonable way.  In particular, we're
>>wondering whether or not we can simply use draw:name, svg:desc, and
>>office:name for such a purpose.  Would the TC recommend doing so, or
>>would it be preferable for us to create a new tag such as svg:title?
>>Obviously either approach will work, but we aren't sure which is
>>better.  All opinions are invited.  -- Nathaniel
>>[image removed
> 
>