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

Re: Adopting the media accessibility requirements

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:12:31 +0200
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vlb9m5r7sr6mfa@kirk>
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:38:38 +0200, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>  
wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist

Yes, I'm aware of this document, but it's not the one that was put forward  
in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0327.html>.  
(At first I didn't actually realize there were two separate documents, and  
I don't think having them separate makes any sense.)

I'm struggling to understand what adopting  
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements>  
would actually mean. Quoting from :

"This document is most explicitly not a collection of baseline user agent  
or authoring tool requirements. It is important to recognize that not all  
user agents (nor all authoring tools) will support all the features  
discussed in this document."

I take this as a carte blanche for browser vendors to ignore each and  
every requirement if they so wish. Surely, that's not the desired outcome,  
given that we're trying to advance the state of media accessibility on the  
web?

Trying to move forward...

On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 03:52:44 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  
wrote:

> Based on discussion so far, I can imagine a couple of potential steps  
> forward:
>
> (1) Clarify the intent of the requirements document - it identifies a  
> comprehensive set of needs, but in further review only some of these  
> will be considered MUST-level for the HTML5 spec itself.

I don't think that accepting any document that puts binding requirements  
on the HTML5 spec would be fruitful. If we're able to reach agreement on  
some specific requirement, we should simply put it in the HTML5 spec  
itself.

> (2) Continue review of the document, particularly by implementors who  
> have not followed the TF discussion, since we have identified some  
> important points of disconnect in the discussion so far.

Maybe, but only after it's clear what we're going to use the document for.

> (3) Consider revising the document to remove requirements that are not  
> directly related to accessibility (if there is consensus on that).

Yes, but only after it's clear what we're going to use the document for.  
There are plenty of requirements I think should be removed, and I have  
suggested to do so in my feedback.

> (4) Instead of officially adopting the requirements as representing  
> consensus of the HTMLgroup, perhaps we can just accept it as one piece  
> of input into the broader conversation. For other ISSUEs, we haven't  
> officially adopted a requirements document, and that has been ok. Still,  
> evaluating proposed solutions against this document could provide a  
> useful piece of information.

Yes, I don't think we should officially adopt any requirements except  
those in the HTML5 spec itself.

So, how do we actually improve the state of media accessibility? My  
preference is of course to see concrete proposals for changes to the spec,  
particularly about the captioning format, as that's quite central.

However, assuming the TF prefers to work on a higher level, something  
along the lines of what Henri suggested would also be helpful. As an  
implementor, I would really like to know what kinds of technologies are  
proven in practice and give real benefits to users with disabilities. The  
current document is nice as an introduction to what types of disabilities  
are relevant to the web, but the actual requirements are mostly too  
technical to give any helpful insight into what works for them and why.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 13:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:20 UTC