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

Re: Notice of impending Formal Objection to Issue 30 Decision (@longdesc)

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 21:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4C64A043.6020804@intertwingly.net>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
CC: 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On 08/12/2010 08:05 PM, John Foliot wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> For anyone who disagrees with the decision and would like to take
>> further action, the following options are available:
>>
>> (1) Enter a Formal Objection.
>> (2) Provide new information that was not available at the time of the
>> decision, which may lead to reopening the issue.
>>
>> Point-by-point back and forth discussion is not really helpful at this
>> stage. One of the two options above is required, for the issue to be
>> revisited. John, I appreciate your passion on this issue, I hope you
>> will channel it into one of these avenues.
>
> Right, and amongst my fury was a number of specific questions to the
> Chairs, culminating with: is there a preferred path forward, given two
> options?
>
> It is my ultimate desire to work in the most profitable direction, and
> also included in my note was a request for clarification regarding
> measurable metrics, as it appears this was one of the criteria used in the
> current decision. How much new information is required to re-open this
> issue?
>
> I believe that re-opening the issue, and supplying data that apparently
> was missing is less disruptive overall, but until we (I) can get a handle
> on what and how much missing data is required means making a decision on
> which path to take difficult. Sam indicated:
>
> 	* use cases that specifically require longdesc, (How many?)
>
> 	* evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that growth
> is expected to continue, (How is this to be measured? What is 'rapid'? How
> do we 'prove' future events? Why is 'rapid' a requirement? Is not proof of
> increased correct usage enough?)
>
> 	* widespread interoperable implementation. (Definition of
> widespread? The W3C Criteria of 2 independent interoperable
> implementations has already been met, so it is unclear how to satisfy this
> further. How do we meet this requirement?)
>
> Since all 3 chairs have signaled a willingness to work with those who wish
> to continue to pursue this, I again respectfully ask for what metrics are
> required to revisit this issue.

The assumption of metrics was something you inferred.

My suggestion on the way forward is to start with a single step.  Such 
as a widespread implementation.  I've heard second hand that Oracle is 
such a user.  If they could be encouraged to present their use case 
directly, and preferably with samples of web pages (sanitized snapshots 
would be fine if we are talking about intranet applications), then the 
members of the working group can discuss whether the pros and cons of 
that usage.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 01:31:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:12 UTC