W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Formal Recorded Complaint

From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:51:56 -0700
Message-ID: <18097.7324.685754.639063@retriever.corp.google.com>
To: cerbera@projectcerbera.com
Cc: mjs@apple.com, foliot@wats.ca, public-html@w3.org

(C) is well-articulated -- thank you.

Ben 'Cerbera' Millard writes:
 > Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
 > > [Position A]: Accessibility is important. Therefore we should have a  lot 
 > > of HTML features that are there specifically to aid accessibility  for 
 > > some classes of users. Authors should be required to add as much 
 > > accessibility stuff as possible to their markup.
 > >
 > > [Position B]: Many authors won't think that much about accessibility.  So 
 > > the best accessibility enhancements are those that work on top of 
 > > features that also have some benefit in mainstream browsers with no  added 
 > > AT. In the course of making the right markup for general use, 
 > > accessibility comes along for the ride, and that's basically all we  need.
 > There is a third point of view, albeit quite small:
 >     [Position C]: Retain accessibility-specific features which
 >     are in use. Add native accessibility to everything. Allow
 >     both to be mixed where useful.
 > This is the position I tend towards. It does what both Position A and 
 > Position B are most interested in. I predict this is what HTMLWG will 
 > eventually settle on for the spec, even though it requires HTMLWG to do lots 
 > of work.
 > John Foliot wrote:
 > > There has been sufficient response from other parties
 > > surrounding this issue that if you do not understand
 > > by now why collectively the accessibility advocates
 > > are upset, then it points to an even bigger
 > > problem.  Please tell me that this is not the case.
 > I am not upset about how WHATWG handle accessibility issues.
 > They are open issues for us to contribute research and experience towards. 
 > We are all invited to shape the spec as it goes through W3C Process over the 
 > next several years. I see this as a tremendous opportunity!
 > When I first found that some accessibility-specific attributes were absent, 
 > sure I was upset. But then I took the time to interact with WHATWG to 
 > understand where they were coming from. Although they have some ideas about 
 > it, turns out they consider accessibility stuff an open issue. So I wasn't 
 > upset any more. :-)
 > But if I hadn't made the effort to see things from their perspective I would 
 > have gotten the wrong idea. I would be making exactly the complaints 
 > saturating public-html from the other accessibility folks. These complaints 
 > are certainly well intentioned. But they are the result of misunderstanding 
 > the stage HTML5 is at and the process it will go through, imho.
 > --
 > Ben 'Cerbera' Millard
 > Collections of Interesting Tables
 > <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/> 

Best Regards,

Title:  Research Scientist      
Email:  raman@google.com
WWW:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/
Google: tv+raman 
GTalk:  raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com
PGP:    http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 23:53:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:25 UTC