W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2010

Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force%2

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:32:46 -0500
Message-ID: <k2m643cc0271004221232tb83b191fh27753c00e5d52c63@mail.gmail.com>
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
PS all of my responses are not being seen in the public-html-ally
group. They're all being rejected. That must make for interesting,
albeit fragmented threads.

Shelley


On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>> Shelley Powers writes:
>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM,  <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>>> Janina, you didn't respond on each individual item.
>>
>> Yes, it was our group decision to aggregate our response for our own
>> convenience. That is true. Whether or not that is appropriate is
>> certainly arguable.
>>
>> Please understand, though, that we did consider each of your proposals
>> individually. Some we ruled out of scope for the TF. Where we had a
>> concern, we discussed each separately, as I and others have pointed out.
>
> This is confusing, Janina.
>
> Your resolution rejected _all_ of the change proposals related to
> removing elements, but you just wrote that some of these the group
> felt were outside of the scope of the accessibility work group. If
> this is true, if I understood correctly, then it was incorrect to
> blanket reject all of the change proposals.
>
> I'm not sure if meeting minutes or emails outside of change proposals
> and counter proposals count as effective rationales in the decision
> process. I guess the co-chairs will have to decide that one. For
> myself, no offense intended for the minute taker (I know how difficult
> a task this is), I find the minutes too difficult to follow in order
> to effectively respond except at a higher level. I'll do my best, but
> I'm not sure, now, which of the elements you considered within the
> province of the TF, and which you felt were out of scope.
>
>>
>> Janina
>>
>
> Shelley
>
>
>>>
>>> We shouldn't have to look through meeting minutes and emails in order
>>> to find responses in regards to each element. These were separate
>>> change proposals. Because they happened at the same time should not
>>> have impacted on how the group responded to these _individual_ change
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>> In particular, the group wasn't even interested in several of the
>>> elements. From the discussion, the view on some seemed to be
>>> indifferent, at best. That, to me, is not reflected in your
>>> resolution.
>>>
>>> At a minimum, you could have posted about each of these items as a
>>> separate poll item, and then allowed your group to voice their
>>> interests over each, individually.
>>>
>>> Regardless, the only official response I see to this group on these
>>> items is a single paragraph. That is the only item to which I can
>>> respond.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>>>
>>> I also wish this discussion would happen in the HTML WG, because my
>>> emails get blocked to the html-ally email group.
>>>
>>> Shelley
>>
>> --
>>
>> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>>                sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>>
>> Chair, Open Accessibility       janina@a11y.org
>> Linux Foundation                http://a11y.org
>>
>> Chair, Protocols & Formats
>> Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>
>>
>
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:17 UTC