W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Reminder of the Deadline for reopen requests based on New Information

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:15:11 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+ri+V=r8gnqb8XDYRxUAcQPi0_u32kvAE-nVydRGK7W+twVdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
Hi Maciej, thank you for your consideration of the re-open request

> 1) Identification of specific tools that include <meta generator>: <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#current_usage_of_meta_name.3Dgenerator_.28New.29
> >
>
> > - This provides evidence of widespread use, but no concrete evidence
> that this causes alt to be omitted more often. This could be material new
> information if more was provided.


How is it possible to provide concrete evidence when the tacked on erro
suppression has not been widely implemented yet?
The reasonong and design behind the supression of errors for missing alt is
to allow authors to not provide an alt, how does this NOT lead to alt being
omitted more often if the check for its presence is suppressed?

) A claim that the majority of content with the generator flag was not
> created with a WYSIWYG tool:
> <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Majority_of_content_not_exclusively_WYSIWYG_.28New.29<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Majority_of_content_not_exclusively_WYSIWYG_.28New.29>
> >
>
> - This seems to be responding to a point not made and not cited in the
> decision (there are general references to "authoring tools" but not
> specifically "WYSIWIG tools"), so this point would not have materially
> affected the decision.
>

 It is an MUST requirement in the HTML5 spec: "This value must not be used
on hand-authored pages." The CP demonstrates with copious data that the
opposite is true.


Due to the above reasons  I  recommend to the taskforce that a formal
objection be submitted as I consider that the chairs conditions for
reopening are based on flawed reasoning and their conditions for re-opening
are unreasonable.

with regards
Stevef

On 17 February 2012 02:54, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:

>
>
> This reopen request includes a Change Proposal, and explicitly calls out
> new information. Thus, what remains to be determined is whether the new
> information would have been likely to materially affect the decision, at
> least in the absence of rebuttal or additional information.
>
>
> The reopen request seems to have four points of new information:
>
> 1) Identification of specific tools that include <meta generator>: <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#current_usage_of_meta_name.3Dgenerator_.28New.29
> >
>
> - This provides evidence of widespread use, but no concrete evidence that
> this causes alt to be omitted more often. This could be material new
> information if more was provided.
>
>
> 2) A claim that the majority of content with the generator flag was not
> created with a WYSIWYG tool:
> <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Majority_of_content_not_exclusively_WYSIWYG_.28New.29<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Majority_of_content_not_exclusively_WYSIWYG_.28New.29>
> >
>
> - This seems to be responding to a point not made and not cited in the
> decision (there are general references to "authoring tools" but not
> specifically "WYSIWIG tools"), so this point would not have materially
> affected the decision.
>
>
> 3) An indication that no evidence was provided for the claim that "users
> will consider an authoring tool non-conforming (buggy) if the documents it
> outputs are not flagged as conforming by validators"
> <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#WYSYWIG_applications_.28new.29
> >
>
> The point being disputed was only a weak factor in the decision. And no
> evidence was given for the opposite proposition. Thus, this was not
> considered material new information.
>
>
> 4) An indication that no evidence was provided of explicit buy-in from
> authoring tool vendors or content authors for the meta generator exemption:
> <
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Assumed_agreement_and_need_.28New.29<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name=generator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming#Assumed_agreement_and_need_.28New.29>
> >
>
> Buy-in was not originally cited, however, significant opposition from
> authoring tool vendors or content authors *would* be material new
> information. No such information has been provded yet, however.
>
>
>
> Conclusion:
>
> We not believe that Steve's new information as currently constituted would
> have been likely to materially affect the decision. Therefore, we deny this
> reopen request at this time. However, if some additional information is
> provided, we expect that this request would be sufficient to reopen the
> issue:
>
> - The first point, identifying many tools that emit <meta generator>,
> would likely be sufficient to reopen the issue if it was also shown that it
> causes alt to be omitted more often, whether deliberately or accidentally.
>
> - The fourth point, arguing that there is no evidence of buy-in from
> authoring tool vendors or content authors, would likely be sufficient to
> reopen the issue if it was also shown that authoring tool vendors or actual
> authors are opposed to the <meta generator> exemption.
>
> - There may be ways to improve the other points, though none come to mind
> at this time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 9:15 AM, Steve Faulkner wrote:
>
> Hi Sam
> I have prepared a reopen request and Change Proposal [1] for the <meta
> generator>
>   aspect of ISSUE-31:
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html>
>
>
> It is expected to be supported by the a11y taskforce, but I want to ensure
> that it is recorded as proposed before the 11 feb cutoff date
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/meta_name%3Dgenerator_does_not_make_missing_alt_conforming
>
>
> regards
> stevef
>
> On 8 February 2012 21:52, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>
>> 1) We remind the Working Group that the requirements for a reopen
>>   request[1] to be considered by the Chairs can be found here:
>>
>>   http://tinyurl.com/reopening-**htmlwg<http://tinyurl.com/reopening-htmlwg>
>>
>> 2) We remind the Working Group that date we expect to have all of the
>>   information we need to evaluate these requests is February 11th:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2012Jan/**0099.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jan/0099.html>
>>
>> 3) At the present time, we believe we have received only two reopen
>>   requests that are due a response on the merits:
>>
>> a) Leif's reopen request and Change Proposal for the <meta generator>
>>   aspect of ISSUE-31:
>>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2011Apr/**0480.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0480.html>
>> >
>>
>> b) Janina's post asking to reopen ISSUE-80:
>>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2011May/**0157.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0157.html>
>> >
>>   and Steve's accompanying Change Proposal:
>>   <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/notitlev2>
>> **>
>>
>> We will be evaluating and responding to both, but in the meanwhile we
>> encourage the owners of the remaining efforts to complete those efforts by
>> this Saturday.
>>
>> - Sam Ruby
>>
>> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/**status/new-information-status.**html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/new-information-status.html>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Friday, 17 February 2012 10:16:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:53 GMT