batik-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org
[Top] [All Lists]

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45574] block images and display desc (and title?) as t

Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 45574] block images and display desc (and title?) as text.
From:
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:29:32 -0800 PST
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45574





--- Comment #8 from Thomas Deweese <deweese@xxxxxxxxxx>  2008-11-17 08:29:30 
PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> #4
> it is the resaponsibility of developers to be aware and implelement the user
> agent guidelines, not bug filers to point to those W3C specification files.

   I'm sorry but I 100% disagree with this point.  If you claim that fixing
a bug is a requirement of a specification then I think that you have a
responability to point to the part of the specification you think requires
it.  At the very least you will be able to find that section
faster than the developer, since you are the one referencing it.

  If you are not willing to do this then what is the developer to do?
How long does a developer search (for SVG there are quite a number of 
multi-hundred page specs involved) before giving up?   How does a developer
'prove a negative'?  As you say you are sometime wrong...

> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGMobile12/access.html#SVGUAAccessibilityGuidelines

   Thanks a lot!

> "Provide a text-only view
> SVG user Agents should provide mechanisms that allow assistive technologies to
> achieve a useful text-only view. Examples include a DOM explorer, a
> synchronized text only view, or an XSLT style sheet to convert the textual
> content to XHTML."

   So Batik includes a DOM explorer which honestly I would think would
be more useful for this.   Batik also supports (IIRC) XSLT style sheets
(I forget the details) although one to do the above transformation isn't 
built in.

   Finally, I want to comment that I never would have connected that 
spec section with "block images and display desc (and title?) as text." 
So it's very good that you provided the specification reference.

   Given we provide a DOM viewer do you think we meet this Accessibility
guideline?

> for SVG1.1 the UA guidelines were less developed:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/access.html
> " To conform to the SVG specification, an SVG user agent should conform to
> UAAG. "
> uaag: http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#gl-feature-on-off
> "Guideline 3. Allow configuration not to render some content that may reduce
> accessibility"

   This I think we are a bit sketchier on, but reading the Toggle images
point which is much closer to your request, it occurs to me that we
do support User Style sheets so turning off all images is pretty easy.
We can't easily replace the images with title/desc text, although the 
tool tips would still be active as long as you only set 'visiblity' to 
hidden (instead of 'display' to 'none').

   I can't promise when it might get implemented as right now none
of the comitters has much time to do new development on Batik. 

> I'm frequently wrong, but do have over 10 years bug filing experience.
> I'm unlikely to file further bugs, if I am expected to provide all the
> supporting evidence, as I already have literally hundreds of bugs filed 
> across many applications, and simply don't have the time.

   That is of course your perogative.  Might I suggest that simply 
providing the links and moving on would save you a lot of time over 
indulging in belittling the developers?  In the long run you might
even feel better.

   Thanks.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>