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

Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you support these change proposals

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:19:44 -0500
Message-ID: <g2o1c8dbcaa1004291219hd0bb88a4uc58aa39d59e879cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Shelley,

> no one speaks up favorably on any of the proposals, I'm going to withdraw all of them.

I support them, Shelley.

Others in the accessibility task force seem to agree with you too as
they voted against the resolution.

John Gunderson, who is a a11y task force member and the Assistive
Communication and Information Technology Accessibility at the
University of Illinois said on the survey [1]:

"I think the more we can simplify HTML 5 elements the easier it will
be to get HTML 5 and accessibility implemented and to explain to
authors how to create accessible content in HTML5. Browser developers
will probably not implement these elements anyway if they don't like
them or do it inconsistently. There is a lot in HTML5 and I think we
have enough to discuss without spending time on elements that may
never be implemented."

Jim Allan, who is an a11y task force member, Co-Chair of the User
Agent working group and webmaster at the Texas School for the Blind
commented [1]:

"Creation of orphaned, poorly implemented or non-implemented elements
is not the goal. Having rich semantics that do not require an
accessibility api to function (not all people with disabilities use
AT) is laudable. But, only if implemented. Current implementations -
0, aria workarounds - 5.

I agree with both John and Jim.

You have pointed out specific and detailed accessibility flaws in
these elements. The a11y task force has said that they will make these
elements better but have no action plan that I am aware of to do so.
Nothing is in the Tracker. How are these elements going to be made
accessible? I don't have the cycles for it. Who does? How will they be
made accessible?

I have always used the three legged stool approach to web standards.
Separate structure, presentation, AND behavior. I have concerns if
introducing behavior into HTML is the right direction. Seems like
contamination to me...like putting presentational elements in that are
hard to get out once they are there.

Like you said, behavior is not semantics. It seems like an attempt at
a fallacious or booby trapped low-redefinition [2] of the word

Another thing that is worrisome is using JavaScript to patch a native
element which is supposed to be a solution for not having to write

Best Regards,

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5
[2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html#LowRedef

Laura L. Carlson

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had planned on making edits to the other Issue change proposals
> based on the counter proposal, but I no longer have a lot of faith
> that what I write is going to make any difference.
> If these change proposals have impacted on any of you, or you agree
> with any of them, you need to say something. Doesn't have to be all of
> the change proposals, either, though they have been unconscionably
> grouped by the HTML WG co-chairs.
> Otherwise, if no one speaks up favorably on any of the proposals, I'm
> going to withdraw all of them.
> Shelley

Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 19:20:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC