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

Re: minutes: HTML WG Weekly 21 May 2009 [draft]

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 08:15:18 -0500
Message-ID: <1c8dbcaa0905250615q20b45654p1a73e7e0121b0952@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>
Cc: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Chaals wrote:

> THe point of a consensus-driven process is getting things done,
> and figuring out how to do them so they work for everyone.

The design principles haven’t and don't work for everyone. As a tool
they have not worked in some cases. That should be recognized in a
disclaimer.

The universal access, media independence, real problems, needless
complexity, and the cow paths principles have all been used in lengthy
debate with regards to accessibility.

One example is the protracted table summary debate. Most recently it
was debated in February 2009 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. But the
debate has a long history: May, June, August, September 2007 [8] [9]
[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]; March April, June, and December
2008 [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]; March and April, 2009 [22] [23] [24]
[25].

One side said @summary was not solving a real problem. A survey of
existing web content showed that the attribute was rarely used and not
a cowpath. @summary technique was needlessly complex and used
incorrectly. Features should be media independent. The requirements of
people with disabilities can be handled with universal access.

The other side said that @summary solves a real problem. @summary is a
cow path for people with disabilities. @summary technique may
sometimes be used incorrectly but that is true of all markup. The
current universal design solution is not an acceptable solution. A
programmatically-determined summary mechanism is needed to provide a
reasonable accessibility accommodation because it enables a person
with a visual disability to have an equal opportunity. Not providing a
summary mechanism excludes people solely on the basis of disability.

This is just one the accessibility issues. The same type of debates
have ensued over the others, prolonging debate. Fundamental
differences exist in interpreting the principles. There is no meeting
of the minds. Core values of working group members differ. This should
be acknowledged.

Sam wrote:

> nor do we even have a draft disclaimer to consider

I proposed the following draft disclaimer on May 20 [26] it is also in
the May 21 Teleconference minutes [27]:

“Publication of this document does not constitute endorsement. There
is no working group consensus on the content of these principles but
it was decided that further effort to refine them and gain consensus
was not a productive use of time.”

Larry also made an Abstract/Introduction proposal May 24. [28]

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg525
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg601
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg634
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg420
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg413
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg312
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Feb/thread.html#msg758
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/thread.html#msg12
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/thread.html#msg188
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007May/thread.html#msg507
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/thread.html#msg181
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/thread.html#msg346
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/thread.html#msg643
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/thread.html#msg1068
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Aug/thread.html#msg534
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Sep/thread.html#msg103
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Mar/thread.html#msg215
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2008Apr/thread.html#msg2
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/thread.html#msg167
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Jun/thread.html#msg330
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Aug/0213.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Dec/thread.html#msg175
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/thread.html#msg1
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/thread.html#msg80
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Mar/thread.html#msg84
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Apr/thread.html#msg239
[26] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0170.html
[27] http://www.w3.org/2009/05/21-html-wg-minutes.html
[28] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009May/0303.html

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Monday, 25 May 2009 13:16:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:03 UTC