W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2010

RE: RESOLUTION to modify text alternative change proposal and reject WAI CG's consensus recommendation

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 14:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Michael\(tm\) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, <wai-cg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004201cad82e$cc795780$656c0680$@edu>
Janina Sajka wrote:
>
> Several times during the F2F we reiterated the important point that what
> we actually meant was candidate resolutions for the TF's consideration
> per our consensus policy:

Hi Janina,

As I too registered frustration, I'd like to respond.  While you may have
indeed discussed the fact that what was being tracked were "candidate"
resolutions, a quick review of the minutes from both days does not show
one instance of either the word "candidate" nor the phrase "candidate
resolution", so if that was the specific intent and purpose, that critical
piece of information was never actually recorded - again more than likely
a failure of trying to track active discussions via scribing and IRC (and
this is *NOT* a condemnation of the scribing process, which appears to
have been as well managed as could be expected), rather than any kind of
"evil plot" by those in attendance.

I also stated in my comment that while I felt some sense of frustration,
it was not going to be something that I was going to spend a lot of energy
on - let's move on.

As a member of our Task Force however, I think we should at the very least
acknowledge that:
a) some confusion exists/existed, 
b) that now the confusion has been rectified, 
c) that we learn from this issue to avoid it repeating, 
d) and that conversation has resumed on the list, which is a good thing.

Laura Carlson wrote:
> 
> >
> > I don't see anything in the resolution that takes this away,
> 
> Oh but it does.
> 
> * An error is something that is invalid.
> * A warning is something that is valid.

Hi Laura,

I am concerned about getting bogged down in the semantics of a word. Where
are you taking these definitions from? Henri's validators.nu (which,
AFAIK, is really the only HTML5 validator we have available to us)?

Frankly, we can call it 'green jello' if the behavior we got was that when
an <img> lacked an @alt value the author was taken to the WAI-authored
page on how to fix this 'broken-ness'. To me, *THAT* is what we want to
have, rather than get stuck over a word. If your students forgot to
include an @alt value, and got transported to the remediation page
constantly, they'd learn quick enough that to avoid that trip, get the
@alt in there....

I've stated my preference for using the stronger ERROR, and that, like
Cynthia, I believe that whatever we call <img> without @src should also be
what we call <img> without @alt, because without both, the thing is
broken.  However, if, as Janina suggests, the fastest way to the bigger
win (pointing to WAI Guidance for repair/remediation) is to call it a
warning, then I say go for the bigger win.

Just my $0.02

JF
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 21:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:07 GMT