W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2011

Re: ISSUE-122 shalott-example: Call for revisions

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:01:42 -0500
Message-ID: <4D5AE9B6.1000702@intertwingly.net>
To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael Cooper (cooper@w3.org)" <cooper@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On 02/11/2011 08:23 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Paul, Maciej, Sam and everyone,
>> Maciej has said that my proposal for HTML-ISSUE-122 [1] is larger in
>> scope than that of the 122 issue.
>> So instead, I have requested that the HTML Chairs apply my issue 122
>> proposal to the third question of alt HTML-ISSUE-31, as it would
>> be a better fit; is an applicable and relevant solution; and is based
>> on the third draft deliverable [3] of HTML-Action-54 [4] which is
>> bound to alt HTML-ISSUE-31.
>> Maciej said that the Chairs will discuss it [5]. (For details please
>> refer to the previous messages in this thread).
> Could the HTML Chairs please let me know your decision on whether my
> proposal [1] for ISSUE 122 will be applied to ISSUE 31 question number
> 3 [2] before the February 14 deadline that you gave me to revise my
> proposal? If the answer is no I will take Maciej advice and  narrow
> the scope for ISSUE 122 to thematic and presentational images and
> raise a new bug that covers everything.

I've updated the issue status page to include your change proposal for 
issue 31, and to removed it from issue 122.

> It would however be more efficient for everyone involved, if ISSUE 31
> question number 3 could be decided before ISSUE 122. If it is decided
> that Proposal 9 solves ISSUE 31 question number 3, then ISSUE 122
> becomes moot.
> Sam, Paul and Maciej, can ISSUE 31 question number 3 please be decided
> before ISSUE 122? Can we solving the "Where" question before all off
> the "What" questions?

Clearly issue 31 and issue 122 are closely related.  All I will say at 
this point is that we haven't yet determined how best to peel off and 
address individual aspects of these issues.  We haven't ruled any 
approach to this in or out as of yet.

> If we are going to piecemeal ISSUE 31, I will need to write change
> proposals regarding ISSUE 122  as well as write change proposals for
> CAPTCHA and Webcam  as  both Steve's document and Ian's document set
> opposing normative guidance. I have filed bugs for both CAPTCHA and
> Webcam and had them under the ISSUE 31 umbrella.

I don't believe that you need to write additional change proposals at 
this time.  Instead I would simply suggest that you be prepared to state 
your objections to any Call for Consensus or Survey that we might issue. 
  As an example, if we find an opening where we can declare consensus on 
a part of this, we will likely seize the opportunity.  If at any time we 
put forward such a CfC and you believe that the wording might be able to 
be interpreted in a way that implies that you do not have an ability to 
pursue your change proposal for issue 31, simply state such as an 
objection to the call and we will address the concern at that time.

> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9216
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9169
> Webcam
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9215
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9174
> The HTML Working Group should not be setting normative advice for alt
> values. That is WCAG's domain, especially when that advise is in
> opposition to WCAG's advice. Providing the mechanism(s) for a text
> alternative is an inalienable HTML WG concern. Whereas providing
> guidance on values for alternative text is an inalienable WAI concern.

That has yet to be determined.  Clearly the membership of both groups 
overlap, and as near as I can tell, some members of WAI have proposed 
specific additions to the HTML draft.  Note: I in no way presume that is 
an indication that such individuals would be opposed to your change 
proposal, I am simply pointing out that what you are stating as fact has 
yet to be decided.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/TextAlternativesIssue122
> [2] That question is:  "Where/who will define requirements on the
> possible values of text alternative examples?".
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/ImgElementSurveyConformaceChoices#3._Text_Alternative_Examples_Question:_.22Where.2Fwho_will_define_requirements_on_the_possible_values_of_text_alternatives_examples.3F.22
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 21:02:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:18 UTC