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

Re: Accessibility Task Force

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:11:02 -0700
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "Sam Ruby (rubys@intertwingly.net)" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Message-id: <FE95A6CC-CADC-4D28-9FE5-9364EC90190B@apple.com>
To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>

On Sep 10, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Michael Cooper wrote:

> A concern for me with this approach is that, if the task force is  
> not a joint task force, its mandate is different. An accessibility  
> task force that is only answerable to the HTML WG could come up with  
> approaches for accessibility in HTML that would not be acceptable to  
> the PFWG - even if there are several PFWG members who participate as  
> HTML members. Being a joint task force helps to ensure the  
> requirement that its outputs are satisfactory to *both* working  
> groups.

Even if we constitute the task force formally as an HTML WG Task Force  
for the sake of patent policy, I believe points 7 and 8 of the  
proposal would stand:
>>>> 7. Someone from each WG would be designated to report back to  
>>>> their WG on the work of the TF.
>>>> 8. Facilitators of the TF would be selected jointly by PF and  
>>>> HTML WG chairs.

In addition, it's likely we would informally expect the Task Force to  
be accountable to both Working Groups and to have a mission to improve  
cross-WG communication.

Would this address the concerns?

  - Maciej

>
> Also, the goal of the PFWG in setting up a joint task force was to  
> create a new formal channel for communication between PFWG and HTML  
> WG. Communication in the past has been difficult and disorganized at  
> times, and we are hoping this channel would help to improve that  
> situation, literally by creating a way to "channel" discussion. By  
> not being a joint task force, that opportunity would be reduced.
>
> I am not speaking on behalf of the PFWG, as there has not been  
> opportunity to check with the group. It is possible that the PFWG  
> will not share these concerns and will approve going ahead as  
> planned. It may be difficult for us to arrive at a consensus quickly  
> as our teleconferences are canceled next week due to a conference. I  
> will see if we can come to consensus by email in time for the next  
> HTML meeting. I myself will be unable to attend that call due to the  
> same conference but there may be someone present who can represent  
> PFWG.
>
> Michael
>
> Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
>>
>> So,
>>
>> the current TF proposed charter mentions:
>> [[
>> As part of the above, the task force expects to participate in the
>> following deliverables of the sponsoring Working Groups:
>>
>>       * Commiting spec edits of HTML (HTML WG deliverable)
>>       * Formal spec review of HTML on behalf of PFWG (PFWG  
>> deliverable)
>> ]]
>>
>> It doesn't say anything about WAI ARIA.
>>
>> As such, the easiest solution to resolve the Patent Policy question  
>> is
>> indeed to create the task force within the HTML Working Group and  
>> gets
>> the WAI PF folks who wants to participate in the TF to join the  
>> HTML WG.
>>
>> Philippe
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:01 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>
>>> PF discussed the 8 points below during our weekly telecon today, 9
>>> September:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/09-pf-minutes.html
>>>
>>> We are in agreement with the 8 points as given below.
>>>
>>> Janina
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul Cotton writes:
>>>
>>>> >From the Sep 3 HTML WG minutes:
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2009/09/03-html-wg-minutes.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> mjs: chairs will be together face-to-face tomorrow, and this can  
>>>>> be
>>>>>   among what we discuss
>>>>>   ... anybody have comments to make about this on the call today?
>>>>>   ... not seeing any comments, propose we move to next agenda item
>>>>>
>>>> The HTML WG chairs and W3C Team did discuss this topic last  
>>>> Friday and came up with the following outline for a joint  
>>>> Accessibility TF:
>>>>
>>>> Accessibility TF:
>>>>  1. Any WG member from either the HTML or PF WGs can join (opt in  
>>>> model)
>>>>  2. Separate email list for TF (email address TBD).
>>>>  3. Both WGs would be obligated re Patent Policy on any W3C  
>>>> Recommendation track document that is impacted by the TF work.
>>>>  4. The Patent Policy obligations would be mentioned in the  
>>>> Status section of said documents.
>>>>  5. TF would have a separate meeting slot (day and time TBD).
>>>>  6. TF would not make final decisions which would be made by HTML  
>>>> and/or PF WGs
>>>>  7. Someone from each WG would be designated to report back to  
>>>> their WG on the work of the TF.
>>>>  8. Facilitators of the TF would be selected jointly by PF and  
>>>> HTML WG chairs.
>>>>
>>>> Discussion on this matter ended with Philippe taking the  
>>>> following Action Item:
>>>>
>>>> ACTION ITEM: Philippe is going to look into some questions we  
>>>> have about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a  
>>>> joint TF.
>>>>
>>>> Comments on the above outline are welcome.
>>>>
>>>> /paulc
>>>>
>>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> Michael Cooper
> Web Accessibility Specialist
> World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
> E-mail cooper@w3.org
> Information Page
>
Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 17:11:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT