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

Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force on Issues 90, 91, 93, 96, 97

From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:12:07 +0100
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20100422170204.M10081@hicom.net>
aloha, shelley!

i quick point -- during the Face2Face, we DID stop to read each 
and every one of your proposals as a group, and anyone who had
not previously read your proposals was explictly asked to do so
by Janina and MikeSmith before commenting or voting...

unfortunately, given the dynamic of a face2face, minutes often 
don't capture the amount of time spent on each item, oft leaving
the impression that things were only alluded-to in passing...  let
me assure you, shelley, that -- from my perspective as a remote 
attendee at the face2face -- every effort was made by the chairs to 
give your proposals their due consideration, and there was a minority
who wanted to "unbunch" your issues to discuss them individually; 
indeed, the issues you raised were considered 1 by 1 by the face2face, 
but -- finding what it perceived as common threads -- it was decided 
by a majority of participants that each issue you raised could be 
addressed in a comprehensive, rather than detailed manner; this 
disagreement is captured in the results of the survey on the 
proposals considered at the face2face:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5

gregory.
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils,
as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them 
with others.         -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
----------------------------------------------------------------
             Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
  Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>
Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, 
Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Sent: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:00:11 -0500
Subject: Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force on Issues 
90, 91, 93, 96, 97

> I appreciate the link to meeting minutes.
> 
> I hope a more formal synopsis of the discussion is documented, 
> so that I can respond individually to the items. As it was,
>  there seemed to be only 4 or 5 people involved, and not 
> everyone seemed to disagree with my arguments.
> 
> There were, also, flat out errors in some of the statements 
> made. the same as there are flat out errors in the counter-
> proposal. However, I can respond directly to the counter-
> proposal errors, but it's difficult to do the same with the 
> abbreviated summary given in meeting minutes.
> 
> In addition, it would seem that not every person in the 
> discussion actually read my change proposals. The discussion 
> definitely didn't touch on many of the issues I discussed 
> related to the elements.
> 
> For instance, neither the counter-proposal, nor the accessibility
> group seem to have addressed the issue of the whether these elements
> are going to achieve broad usage. The HTML5 elements are 
> inferior to the state of the art. It may be an inconvenient 
> truth, but web authors/developers are not going to use inferior options.
> 
> Neither the resolution nor the counter-proposal mentioned the 
> costs to communities outside of the accessibility community or 
> the browser implementor community. Other than a vague reference 
> to having to write tutorials.
> 
> There is real cost to other web communities, and not to weigh the
> costs to other communities in the decisions is, well frankly,
> irresponsible.
> 
> Now, the group may balance the costs against benefits, but from the
> discussion, the group seemed to see no cost at all. In fact, the
> decision making seemed to be cavalier about potential negative impacts
> to other groups.
> 
> Again, I thank you for the link. Unfortunately, it generates more
> questions rather than provides answers.
> 
> Shelley
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 17:13:09 GMT

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