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

Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force%2

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:01:08 +0100
Message-Id: <FD52ED92-481E-4843-BBDE-665B18E05FDB@cfit.ie>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: "janina@rednote.net" <janina@rednote.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
That is not true. We took time to consider your suggestions and  
discussed them individually before reaching any conclusions.

Josh

On 22 Apr 2010, at 19:42, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM,  <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>>>    From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> The Accessibility TF held a vote and did a blanket rejection of
>>> several separate change proposals--all without discussion in the TF
>>> group, and without splitting the items up so that each may be
>>> considered by their own merit.
>>
>>
>> As Co-Facilitator of the Task Force, I want to correct the record  
>> here.
>>
>> It is incorrect to say that we did not consider each individual  
>> change
>> proposal.  While our resolution aggregates our response, we did  
>> indeed consider
>> each item separately--on its merits.
>>
>> Furthermore, our recommendation message documents our deliberations  
>> on each
>> individual proposal by URI reference to our WBS survey and to the  
>> minutes of the meeting where we
>> discussed each proposal individually:
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/1086.html
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Apr/ 
>> 0131.html
>>
>> For  convenience our deliberations are minuted at:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/04/07-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>
>> My apology if this was too obscure in the chain of URIs.
>>
>>
>
> Janina, you didn't respond on each individual item.
>
> We shouldn't have to look through meeting minutes and emails in order
> to find responses in regards to each element. These were separate
> change proposals. Because they happened at the same time should not
> have impacted on how the group responded to these _individual_ change
> proposals.
>
> In particular, the group wasn't even interested in several of the
> elements. From the discussion, the view on some seemed to be
> indifferent, at best. That, to me, is not reflected in your
> resolution.
>
> At a minimum, you could have posted about each of these items as a
> separate poll item, and then allowed your group to voice their
> interests over each, individually.
>
> Regardless, the only official response I see to this group on these
> items is a single paragraph. That is the only item to which I can
> respond.
>
>
>> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>
> I also wish this discussion would happen in the HTML WG, because my
> emails get blocked to the html-ally email group.
>
> Shelley
>
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:01:26 GMT

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