W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:16:02 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin5Y0a3dRPSJJEQ0RLeDM8xVH79tAW4XB59RdL9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
apologies
a clarification of one point
 i wrote:
"While the commit then review may be a useful method for the development of
new features"

I meant to say:

While the commit then review on an unversioned docuemnt may be a useful
method for the development of new features it does not follow that it is a
good method for the authoring practices that accompany features.
While the brower vendors may control what is implemented , they do not and
should not control the authoring conformance requirements associated with
imlementations.

regardes
stevef

On 24 January 2011 13:10, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think authoring conformance requrements are not served well by the living
> standard  model, there is no certainty over the  rules that authors should
> follow.
> also including things that are half-baked (hgroup springs to mind) in a
> standard can potentially mislead developers,  waste time thier time and
> undermine the concept of web (authoring) standards.
>
> While the commit then review may be a useful method for the development of
> new features, it does not follow that it is a good method for the authoring
> practices that accompany features.
>
> regards
> stevef
>   On 24 January 2011 12:59, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>wrote:
>
>> On 24/01/2011 11:39, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:21:39 +0100, Joshue O Connor
>> > <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote:
>> >> Yes, but from an a11y focus. The lack of vendor involvement in the spec
>> >> development, and this latest move will make the resolution of issues
>> >> such as <canvas> etc much harder. We shall see if this is the case in
>> >> time, I guess.
>> >
>> > Vendors not being involved sounds like the real problem here. And
>> > historically snapshot-based specifications have not helped with that.
>>
>> Exactly. I guess there is little we can do about it at this point.
>>
>> > Witness some of the accessibility features added in HTML4. You have to
>> > design something that all parties are interested in supporting. (Just
>> > stating some general observations here; not trying to say anything about
>> > <canvas> as frankly I am not too familiar with the current state of
>> > affairs.)
>>
>> Also agreed, in fact is it just as well if something isn't explicitly an
>> "accessibility thing" just something that works for lots of diverse
>> users. There is much in the spec that is very welcome, and will make the
>> web more accessible, I'm just not convinced the current development is
>> the best move.
>>
>> Anyway, we shall see.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Josh
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> with regards
>
> Steve Faulkner
> Technical Director - TPG
>
> www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com<http://www.html5accessibility.com/>|
> www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
> HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
> dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
> Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com |
www.HTML5accessibility.com<http://www.html5accessibility.com/>|
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 13:17:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:22 UTC