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

RE: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 19:05:03 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <019f01caa6d9$2a3ee740$7ebcb5c0$@edu>
Ian Hickson wrote:
> 
> 
> I've tried to massage the offending paragraph to be less optimistic
> about
> future implementation strategies, and have included an additional
> paragraph condemning any reliance on alt repair techniques.

I do not believe that this addresses the Change Proposal adequately; adopt
the proposal as is (remove one paragraph), or ask the experts to fine tune
it based upon the subsequent discussion that evolved from Matt's posting.
DO NOT pretend to be an expert in areas where you are not. Matt is a
professional accessibility specialist, a former W3C staffer in WAI, a
published author and co-editor of ATAG2: he both understands the process,
the procedure, the importance of the language and guidance and his change
proposal was:

Change Proposal: Remove Image Heuristics Paragraph from img Element
Section
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ChangeProposals/ImageHeuristics 
	(http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/66) 

Failing to do just that means that Issue 66 remains open, and I for one
will object to it's being closed by this recent amendment.

FWIW, the prevailing consensus (as I read it) was to remove the text and
instead point to UAAG, although I will concede that at least one chair did
not feel that this was where things sat:

"rubys: ISSUE-66 image-analysis seems like we are not quite at consensus,
may need counter-proposals"
(Sam Ruby -
http://www.w3.org/mid/EFA45E40-F0DB-4DBD-BEA8-01446893475E%2540apple.com) 


Here, I am somewhat confused however, as the large volume of emails circa
January 22-24 suggest that consensus was indeed coalescing: 


- "In the meantime, we need to respond to Matt's change proposal. His
proposal states to remove the one section. Not replace it with something
else. Not "soften the text" or provide a detailed listing of what tools
can now do with images. Remove the section." 
(Shelley Powers -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1214.html)


- "> Between the two, I prefer Maciej's idea of stripping out the specific
advice and pointing to UAAG. <snip>...

That doesn't seem disagreeable."
(Tab Atkins Jr -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1203.html)


- "I don't think the question of what the user is doing is actually
relevant to this point. I would therefore remove this paragraph, and the
following techniques, leaving us with the reference.... If the UAAG
documentation doesn't provide sufficient ideas about how to guess what an
image might represent in a given circumstance, I would suggest providing
feedback to them suggesting they add more, rather than squeezing it into
the HTML 5 spec."
(Charles McCathieNevile -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0279.html) 


- "Between the two, I prefer Maciej's idea of stripping out the specific
advice and pointing to UAAG."
(Matt May -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0278.html)


- ""I would support a statement that makes reference to UAAG requirements
on
missing @alt." - Matt May
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1103.html

<snip>

In the interest of clarity I both agree and support these statements;
especially the first one."
(John Foliot -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0277.html)


-"If in fact anything is needed, I'd suggest simply using the last bit.
Maybe something like:
	"For User Agent advice on techniques for repairing missing content
please refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines."

And then ask the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
(UAWG) which portion of the UAAG spec HTML5 should link to."
(Laura Carlson -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0274.html) 


- "For more information, refer to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines
techniques for repairing missing content ([UAAG10-TECHS], section 2.7)."
(Lachlan Hunt -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Jan/1123.html)


- "I agree that it doesn't make sense to specifically mention techniques
the practicality of which is uncertain. I think it would be better to list
no specific techniques..."
(Maciej Stachowiak -
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Jan/0270.html) 

JF
Received on Saturday, 6 February 2010 03:05:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:13 UTC