W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > October 2014

Re: clarification sought on publishing alt text document as a WG note

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:54:11 -0400
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20141009165411.GO27116@opera.rednote.net>
Hi Again, Steve:

Steven Faulkner writes:
> HI Janina
> 
> 
> 
> On 8 October 2014 20:57, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, Steve:
> >
> > Steven Faulkner writes:
> > > For future reference and in attempting to better understand how the
> > process
> > > works, can I please get an explanation of how a document[3] that it was
> > > agreed by consensus at the start of June 2014 by the HTML WG [1] and the
> > > HTML accessibility taskforce [2] was not published.
> >
> > I can understand your frustration. Completing this document as a W3C
> > note seemed a pro forma task back in June to, I think, all of us. The
> > approvals you note were indeed obtained. However, issues arose during
> > the PF CfC, and things have devolved from there.
> >
> 
> I can find the email to the PF about the tasforce resolution:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pfwg/2014Jun/0039.html
> 
> I cannot find any negative comments to the CFC / objections (apart from the
> one you cited, but cannot find the source)  I note the objection you cite
> is in regards to the HTML5 spec not the alt doc.
> 
Correct. The issues arose in the TF context and the TF minutes provide
the best bread crumb trail for how this evolved/devolved.

Most especially, you might want to be sure to look at the minutes from
today's call:

http://www.w3.org/2014/10/09-html-a11y-minutes.html
 
> 
> > > The work to be done to
> > > publish this document as a note was/is mechanical and trivial, yet in Oct
> > > 2014 it has still not been published, and it has now appears to have been
> > > decided that the document's publication will not occur until unknown,
> > > possibly substantive changes have been made.
> > >
> > Yes, the early issues raised could be called "mechanical," as you say.
> > However, I would not agree that lack of a correctly formatted masthead
> > with copyright, abstract, and status section is trivial. These really
> > should all be in place when a CfC is conducted, as objections against
> > the language here are also grounds for bugs.
> 
> 
> The effort required to add boilerplate is trivial, not what the text
> contains. I have been editing various specs for a while now and from my
> understanding  these sort of additions take minutes or hours rather than
> months.
> 
Indeed. But by virtue of the same reasoning, they shouldn't be absent
when the doc is put forward for CfC. Their lack flawed the CfC in this
instance.

> 
> > We could say that we were
> > somewhat sloppy about the document proposed for consideration in the
> > CfCs, though I think most of us were willing to overlook that.
> >
> 
> I did not see any objections to it.
> 
They've been there in TF minutes.

And, for the record, as a TF doc requiring PF approval, it's always
possible that WAI funding might require particular funder
acknowledgement if there's significant WAI staff time involved. That
wasn't the case here, but it's an additional process twek that we need
to account for pre-CfC.

The acknowledgements section of the current MAUR is an example, at the
end of:

When they pertain, getting this detail right is important to continuing
funding for WAI.

> >
> > In the past few weeks additional concerns have arisen and I would say it
> > is indeed likely that substantive changes will be sought. There are
> > already bugs filed against the current draft, and additional bugs are
> > expected.
> >
> 
> 
> >
> > > What exactly does the HTML WG CFC process mean if decisions made via such
> > > process are delayed for months then set aside without recourse to the
> > group?
> > >
> >
> 
> > The process did not fail. You've simply forgotten the PF componant in
> > the process. Without it, the HTML-WG cannot proceed.
> >
> 
> I admit that I am sometimes at a loss in the multiple layers of process,
> but the 'PF component' appears ambiguous at best,  I would like to better
> understand how the PF component held up the publication of the HTML5
> techniques alt doc, when there were no (cited) objections to it from the
> PF, but not the pending publication of HTML5.
> 
> I appreciate and abide by process, but am flummoxed by the apparent
> inconsistency in which it is applied.
> 
I'm not sure what inconsistancy you see. It's a joint document, subject
to both HTML and PF WGs, as we've established.

> I regret the delay, but this is an important topic in web accessibility.
> > Three-four years from now, I believe it will prove more important that
> > we paused to get things right. By then all this delay will have been
> > forgotten.
> >
> 
> Pausing to get things right implies that once published as a note, the doc
> will be set in stone, whereas I thought it was previously agreed that the
> note would be updated as needed.
> 
> As I stated to the task force list last week, I have stepped down as
> editor, as I effectively stopped work on the document in June, after 4
> years, when it was (I thought) agreed by consensus that the document would
> be published. I will of course provide feedback on changes when CFC's are
> issued for eventual publication. Note I continue to edit substantially the
> same material in the HTML 5.1 specification [1], so any feedback on that is
> welcome.
> 
> 
> >
> > PS: This is pretty much a standing agendum on the TF call. As always, you
> > are
> > welcome to discuss this with the TF there.
> >
> 
> I appreciate that, and do attend when I am able to, but paid work
> commitments often intervene. Asynchronous decision making and communication
> generally works better for me, but I will be at TPAC and am happy to
> discuss there.
> 
I look forward to greeting you there in person.

Janina

> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content.html#alt
> 
> regards
> 
> SteveF
> 
> 
> 
> > Janina
> >
> > >
> > > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0055.html
> > > [2]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Jun/0019.html
> > > [3] http://rawgit.com/w3c/alt-techniques/master/index.html
> > > [4]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Oct/0005.html
> > > --
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > SteveF
> > > HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
> >                         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> >                 Email:  janina@rednote.net
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair,  Protocols & Formats     http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> >         Indie UI                        http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
> >
> >

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,	Protocols & Formats	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
	Indie UI			http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2014 16:54:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:37:36 UTC