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

RE: Media Accessibility Discussion (Was RE: Adopting the media accessibility requirements))

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Frank Olivier'" <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "'Aryeh Gregor'" <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, 'Philip Jägenstedt' <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01ba01cb79da$ee138840$ca3a98c0$@edu>
Either works for me to the point that *time of day* is more important to 
know: Lyon is 8 hours ahead of California, so any afternoon sessions are 
smack-dab in the middle of the night. Thus my preference would be for as 
early in the day as possible: 9:00 AM Tuesday or Thursday represents 1:00 AM 
for this region of the world - late but not impossible.

Cheers!

JF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Olivier [mailto:Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:40 AM
> To: John Foliot; 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt'
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
> Subject: Media Accessibility Discussion (Was RE: Adopting the media
> accessibility requirements))
>
> (Sending mail on behalf of Janina, who is unable to send mail at the
> moment due to IPv6 issues)
>
> P&F is interested in setting up a time for a media accessibility
> discussion that all interested parties can attend/call in to; Tuesday
> (November 2nd) or Thursday (November 4th) are the two best days for the
> TPAC attendees to do this. Which days/times work best for other
> participants that are not in Lyon?
>
> Thanks
> Frank Olivier
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:16 AM
> To: 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt'
> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
> Subject: RE: Adopting the media accessibility requirements
>
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
> > <philipj@opera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Since the two groups involved here (browser implementors and
> > > accessibility experts) have obvious issues communicating with each
> > other, it
> > > would be helpful if we were all involved in the discussions as they
> > happen,
> > > rather than communicating via requirements lists.
> >
> > I agree with this general point.  It seems like right now, task
> forces
> > are formed, discuss things amongst themselves at length, and only at
> > the very end present their findings to implementers and spec editors.
>
>
> Aryeh, you are more than welcome (nay, encouraged) to participate in
> the Accessibility Task Force, and specifically on this topic of media
> user requirements.  As the co-chair of the media sub-team I have
> consistently and regularly asked for feedback from the larger group
> about this document, with very few people actually bothering to
> respond.
>
> See for example:
>
> "...huge need to get this done for yesterday -- media subteam committed
> to knuckle down, but need specific feedback from non-subteam members
> ... even if only have 15 minutes, please consult
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist and
> tag with a11y requirements; goal is to complete over weekend so can
> discuss at TF telecon next week"
> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/09-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
> "ms: we need implementers to give tech assessment of impact
> jf: this has been a largely discussed topic for weeks,"
> http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
> "JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements
> into technical requirements ... worked through 50% of requirements ...
> encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer feedback and
> comments as things progress ... need to have technical requirements and
> user requirements stable enough to advance to the HTML WG next week --
> perhaps 10 days left before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain"
> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-minutes.html
>
> ----
>
> Further, the User Requirements document in question has been published
> and available for review and comment since late August, and was
> specifically announced *nine weeks ago* today as needing/wanting more
> feedback from the larger community:
>
> "We are to the point where we need to begin engaging the wider HTML 5
> community in understanding the ramifications of these requirements, and
> in collaborating on appropriate solutions. Thus, we invite you to
> become familiar with the requirements, ask questions, offer
> suggestions, and generally engage with us on next steps." (Thu, 26 Aug
> 2010)
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0327.html
>
>
> There are 51 registered members of the Accessibility Task Force,
> including Ian Hickson and Philip Jägenstedt
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force#participants) who receive the
> public-a11y mailing list, which includes these weekly minutes, the
> minutes from the media sub-teams weekly (open) conference calls, as
> well as all correspondence to the list (and while not 100%, many of the
> emails that deal with media issues have been prefixed in the subject
> line with [media]).
>
> Finally, Janina's note of Aug. 26th was sent to the larger HTML WG
> public list (443 group participants), of which Ian, Philip and you are
> also recipients, so you cannot say that we have not solicited feedback
> before this - you may not have read it or acted upon it, but no-one but
> you can control that, and the Accessibility Task Force cannot be blamed
> for that. If you or others have further suggestion on how to ensure
> that this is an open dialog, please feel free to offer those
> suggestions, but to arrive at the end of the party complaining that it
> started without you is disingenuous at best, and simply unfair. The
> bulk of the discussion on how we arrived at these User Requirements
> happened over the summer months and occurred, for the most part, on the
> mailing list and via our weekly conference calls.
>
>
>
> > The latter are then forced to either accept the findings on the basis
> > of authority, or demand detailed explanation of the rationale for
> > every finding before they accept it.  The latter is usually what
> > happens in practice except for very minor or obvious changes, and in
> > that case, it would make much more sense if the implementers/spec
> > editors were involved in the discussions from the beginning.
>
> The editor is free and welcome to join us in any way he chooses: he has
> chosen to not do so - period.
>
> Implementers from the major browsers (with the exception of Opera) have
> been weekly participants on the media sub-team conference calls, and
> Silvia Pfeiffer (representing Mozilla), Eric Carlson (representing
> WebKit) and Sean Hayes (representing Microsoft) all contributed to the
> authoring and editing of the User Requirements document; in fact, Eric
> Carlson and I actually met face-to-face twice, here in my office, while
> we worked on this document together (a pleasant and enlightening
> experience for both of us, I believe).
> Thus to suggest that the implementers were not consulted or involved is
> simply false.
>
> Would I like to see Opera and Chrome participants more active in our
> work?
> Yes - but I do not have the power to insist that they do so; it's
> completely their choice. However to actively not involve oneself in the
> process, and then complain that you've not been involved in the process
> is a hyperbolic argument that has little traction or grounds for
> sympathy.
>
>
> > Or
> > alternatively, that task force findings be written in a persuasive
> > rather than authoritative manner, and present the evidence and
> > reasoning for their decisions in a form that will convince people who
> > aren't domain experts.
> >
> > In the end, the implementers are the ones who have to make the
> > judgment on what features they'll implement.  When a proposed
> > accessibility, internationalization, or other feature requires a
> > tradeoff of some kind, it's impossible for them to make that tradeoff
> > intelligently unless they're given the full background on why the
> > feature is needed, as Henri says.
>
> This is exactly why we spent so much time ensuring that the user
> requirements document was as complete and accurate as we could make it,
> with both a prose narrative on the issue, as well as specific bullet
> points outlining how these might likely manifest. It is also now
> serving as the foundation for the creation of the Media Accessibility
> Checklist
> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist)
> where we are taking these User Requirements and mapping them against
> WCAG, UAAG, as well as a subjective Must/Should/May evaluation, all in
> an effort to help implementers further address and understand the
> numerous issues that accessible media brings to the table. Everyone who
> has already been directly involved with this effort is aware of the
> enormity of the issues, and of the work effort that will be required to
> meet all of these User needs.
>
> What is extremely important to understand however is that there can be
> no "trade-off" when it comes to accessibility; this is counter to a
> core W3C Mission Statement, and would likely also land us in
> significant legal quagmires. I think any and all of the legal teams
> associated with the browser implementers would have a very difficult
> time defending 'accessibility' to some user-groups while deliberately
> not supporting
> others: I'm no lawyer but I welcome you to investigate that statement
> further if you doubt my 'basis of authority'.
>
>
> > We aren't going to get anywhere if
> > we have the stone wall of a task force separating experts on some
> > particular matter from everyone else, with only limited communication
> > over the wall.
>
> Communication is a 2-way street: we've been 'actively broadcasting' but
> have you been actively listening? Feeding back? If there is an
> appearance of a stone wall to you, it is one of your own creation:
> we've in fact been trying to build a bridge, not a wall.
>
>
> >  It would be to everyone's benefit if all concerned parties were
> > involved from the start.  Hopefully that way implementers will learn
> > more about accessibility, accessibility experts will learn more about
> > implementation, and more workable proposals can be crafted from the
> > get-go.
>
> And with the *direct involvement* of implementers from most of the
> browser developers from the start, we believe we've come a long way
> towards meeting that goal. I think that it would be fair to say that
> Eric's, Silvia's and Sean's awareness and understanding of
> accessibility issues has been enhanced since we started this work, and
> I know *my* understanding of the technical requirements, issues and
> difficulties has increased significantly by working with these folks.
>
> So I once again extend an invitation to you Aryeh to join us in the
> media sub-team's efforts: there is still lots to do, and any and all
> help is gratefully welcomed.
>
> Cheers!
>
> JF
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 15:39:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:23 GMT