W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

RE: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

From: John Foliot <foliot@wats.ca>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:02:27 -0700
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Shelley Powers'" <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'William Loughborough'" <wloughborough@gmail.com>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "'W3C WAI-XTECH'" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, "'WHATWG'" <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
Message-ID: <017801ca0e7f$d2534b30$76f9e190$@ca>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> Maybe I missed an important e-mail. Could you point me to the e-mail
> that
> shows the reasoning and data behind the idea that including and
> continuing
> to encourage authors to use the summary="" attribute would improve
> overall
> accessibility of the Web beyond the status quo?

While we are ferreting out misplaced crucial emails, can we also see where
it was 'decided' to make @summary obsolete, and to further counsel content
authors *NOT* to use @summary, even though by W3C Charter this counseling is
the responsibility of the WAI?

(And while you looking, can you also point me to the official consensus note
that suggested that deferring a captioning solution with video to 'the next
version' was met with approval?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0667.html |
http://john.foliot.ca )


> 
> The position argued, in detail, with data [1] to support the current
> text
> in the specification is that encouraging the summary="" attribute to be
> used actually harms the overall accessibility of the Web.

Can you point to WHAT WG / HTML5's definition of 'harm' and supporting
evidence that this harm is being inflicted? 

> To my
> knowledge,
> nobody has provided a sound counter-argument to this. 
> If I have missed
> such a counter-argument, please send me a link. 

Ian, browsers have this wonderful feature called Bookmarks; be sure to save
this: http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/SummaryForTABLE 

I count no less than 27 different bullet points addressing why @summary
should be retained as a fully recognized attribute. By contrast, I count but
10 bullet points on why not. This resource also contains a large amount of
data including specified use-cases, examples of proper usage in the wild,
evidence of implementation in multiple user agents and specified usage by a
leading Adaptive Technology.

I realize that you have a lot to read in any given day, but this document
has been around for quite some time and is relatively stable.  This is not
new data.  If there is still a need for continued debate, then please let's
all review the existing data as collected by both proponents and opponents
of @summary as provided in the noted wiki.  

Meanwhile, I respectfully request that you not impose your personal opinion
on @summary and restore it to a valid and current HTML attribute - retaining
its existing, current status as seen in both HTML4 and XHTML1 (and not,
instead, re-invent the wheel:  perhaps this faint cow path simply needs more
traffic and a coat of blacktop to be back on its way) 

JF
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 06:03:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:05 UTC