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

Re: Why I don't attend the weekly teleconference (Was: Input on the agenda)

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:10:05 +0100
Message-Id: <p0624083ec66e87ee8ead@[17.202.35.52]>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
At 9:42  -0500 29/06/09, Shelley Powers wrote:
>  >
>>  There is a clear concern on this list, supported by some data, that
>>  'summary' is so polluted in practice that no-one who needs accessibility
>>  would ever bother looking at its value, which means in turn that no-one
>>  interested in supporting accessibility would bother putting data there
>>  because their constituency won't notice it.  If this is true, summary may be
>  > irrecoverably polluted.  We need to know if there is evidence to the
>>  contrary.
>>
>
>Concern, yes. But not scientific study, which is what is claimed to
>support a specific set of actions taken for that concern.
>
>Wouldn't another set of actions be a stronger clarification in the
>HTML 5 specification about how the attribute is to be used? Isn't that
>just as viable an action to take based on the concern?

If the hypothesis is that summary is "irrecoverably polluted", which 
is what I wrote, then clarification of how we'd hoped it would have 
been used instead, is rather backwards-looking, isn't it?

>  > I think this lies behind some suggestions that we make accessibility 'work'
>>  from design aspects that everyone can perceive and verify, so that web
>>  authors are more likely to 'get it right'.  So, far from trying to make
>>  accessibility invisible, it's an attempt to make it not a ghetto, but a
>>  normal aspect of everyday design.  But it does lead to a situation where you
>>  can no longer point and say "see, this attribute is purely for
>>  accessibility, ergo, we support accessibility".
>>  --
>
>Again, that is one solution, but it completely abrogates the purpose
>behind summary,

No, I am hypothesizing a solution which is equally or more effective 
for the user, and more likely to be authored and verified as the 
non-accessibility-needing also use and verify the data.  Whether such 
a solution exists, i do not know, but it only "completely abrogates 
the purpose" if the purpose was to provide a unique talisman rather 
than a solution.

>Regardless, I would appreciate that my arguments are seen as genuine
>interest.

It would be better if we all attacked the arguments and provided 
supporting data, yes.

>More so, I do believe that I have asked questions and
>expressed concerns that have not been addressed,

I have heard the concern that something you clearly cherish is being 
considered for replacement; more than that is difficult to perceive. 
It may be that your tone is obscuring your message, perhaps.


-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 15:12:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:39 GMT