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 19:14:11 -0500
Message-ID: <z2m1c8dbcaa1004291714ra4193c9ex77dec06185c7eae6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, jongund@illinois.edu, jimallan@tsbvi.edu
Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Shelley,

>> Others in the accessibility task force seem to agree with you too as
>> they voted against the resolution.
>>
>> Jon Gunderson, who is an 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 Jon and Jim.
>
> I could wish both Jon and Jim would respond here, too.

I don't know if they keep up with reading this HTML Working Group
list. But I've included them on this email. Hopefully they will reply
with additional thoughts if they have them.

>> 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?
>
> That is a good point, an excellent point.
>
> I'm assuming that someone will be filing a bug for all of these.

I hope it doesn't fall through the cracks.

One of my greatest fears with these elements is that they will turn
out like canvas with accessibility considered after the fact.

>> 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
>> "semantic".
>
> The more I've written on these, the more puzzled I am at the use of
> "semantic" as a form of universal goodness.

The word has been redefined and spun.

Best Regards,
Laura

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

On 4/29/10, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Laura Carlson
> <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Shelley,
>>
>>> no one speaks up favorably on any of the proposals, I'm going to withdraw
>>> all of them.
>>
>> I support them, Shelley.
>
> Thanks, Laura
>
>> 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.
>
> I could wish both Jon and Jim would respond here, too.
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> That is a good point, an excellent point.
>
> I'm assuming that someone will be filing a bug for all of these.
>
>> 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
>> "semantic".
>>
>
> The more I've written on these, the more puzzled I am at the use of
> "semantic" as a form of universal goodness.
>
> Frankly, in my opinion, HTML5 will be the last markup version that
> introduces these declarative elements. Why? Because people aren't
> interested in them, and frankly, as I hope my writing demonstrates,
> they're not well defined. Seriously, the editor has tossed out some
> vague directions and is leaving it up to the browser companies to do
> their thing, and then eventually spec out what works.
>
>
>> 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
>> JavaScript.
>> http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/html5-details-jquery
>>
>
> I found that a fascinating exercise. No offense to Mathias' hard work,
> he took about five times as much code to "emulate" details, as we
> would to actually create a more effective implementation of details.
>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>
> Thanks again, Laura
>
> Shelley
>
>> [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

-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 00:14:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT