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

Comments on IRC log

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:44:54 +0100
Message-ID: <46A907C6.5010905@cfit.ie>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

> > # [07:50] <Lachy> aargh! It really annoys me how some people conflate
making content accessibile with providing fallback to those without the
necessary software

Am unsure of why this frustration arises. AFAIK the whole idea is that
accessible content/fallback content are for all intents and purposes -
the same.

>> > > # [07:52] <Hixie> the most annoying thing for me in public-html is
the way most people jump to a solution rather than determining the problem

Thats not true. People try their best to answer related threads and
contribute. If there is frustration about this then it should be made
more explicit that there is an expectation or preference for problem
determination rather than problem solution. That will totally confuse
the kids.

>> > > # # [07:54] <Lachy> yeah, that too. I tried getting people to focus
on the problem months ago, and it didn't really work then, and still not
working now
>> > > # # [07:55] <Lachy> like in the whole headers="" debate, I tried to
talk about how we could make tables accessible without needing headers,
and basically got accused of ignoring the needs of the accessibility
community
>> > > # # [07:55] <Hixie> yeah
>> > > # # [07:56] <Hixie> it's ridiculous

This is slightly alarming as it seems to say that - we tried to ask you
what you thought but we didn't like the answer we got so we may not ask
again in the future. As far as the headers thing goes I am totally in
the dark about what the suggested replacement technique was/is. Hence my
own insistence on keeping the whole id/headers thing afloat - for both
legacy UAs and also because I am confused about what the suggested
replacement should be.

>> > > # # [15:01] <Dashiva> This is orthogonal to fallback/alt content for
images, though
>> > > # # [15:05] <Lachy> oh well, the legal stick of accessibility has
been waived again :-/
>> > > # # [15:05] <Lachy> why is it that when accessibility advocates
can't come up with a rational argument, they always fall back to the
legal stick?
>> > > # # [15:08] <Dashiva> Well, maybe they realize there are no carrots
available?
>> > > # # [15:25] <mpt> If the Web had smell-o-vision, would accessibility
advocates fight for longdescs of odors on behalf of those with no sense
of smell?
>> > > # # [15:27] <Lachy> A perfume site that made use of smell-o-vision
would probably provide a description of the smell anyway for all users,
so they can know what it's like before sampling.

This section is frankly kind of amazing. In several fell swoops the
entire efforts of the accessibility people on the list are dismissed as
almost Pavlovian responses and then an absurd dialogue about
smell-o-vision ensues. This is trivializing the efforts of people here
who are concerned about the needs of people with disabilities.

Josh
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 20:45:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:47 UTC