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

FORMAL OBJECTION (RE: Working Group Decision on 142 poster-alt)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <090901cbee2b$ebd17bd0$c3747370$@edu>
Chairs,

Please consider this a Formal Objection regarding this decision. 

The principle grounds for this Objection can be found here:

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> Looking deeper into this it turns out that the "Introduce a new
> <firstframe> element" Change Proposal is internally inconsistent.  It
> provides spec text that describes an element with a value of a url, but
> then provides examples where the value is placed in a src attribute.

This is an inaccurate statement, as NO ACTUAL SPECIFICATION TEXT WAS
PROVIDED. In fact, under the heading "Creation of 4.8.10 The firstframe
element" the Change Proposal *specifically* states:

	"(NOTE: I make no pretense of being a Technical Editor, and
request assistance in ensuring that the following prose explanation be
converted to workable technical text.)"
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/PosterElement#Creation_of_4
.8.10_The_firstframe_element 

Since no actual specification text was provided (and further, technical
assistance to ensure workable text be created was specifically requested),
to reject this Change Proposal on inconsistent Specification Text is an
illogical and unfounded judgment. 

To discard all of the evidence and concrete examples admitted by the
Chairs as relevant and strong on a misunderstanding and misinterpretation
of prose text is both short-sighted and incorrect. Repeatedly throughout
the Decision the Chairs admit that concrete examples to support the
Principle of the Change Proposal were in evidence and provided strong
argument.

Further, the No-Change Proposal does nothing to address these issues and
problems acknowledged as relevant and strong to this issue. Failing to
address the recognized needs (and wants) of people with disabilities on a
misinterpretation of prose text does a disservice to all those affected by
this decision, and is counter to the spirit of the design principle of
Users over Authors over Implementers over Code Purity.

 
> == Appealing this Decision ==
> 
> If anyone strongly disagrees with the content of the decision and would
> like to raise a Formal Objection, they may do so at this time. Formal
> Objections are reviewed by the Director in consultation with the Team.
> Ordinarily, Formal Objections are only reviewed as part of a transition
> request.

As noted, please consider this a raising of a Formal Objection



> == Revisiting this Issue ==
> 
> This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of
> possible relevant new information include:
> 
> * Identification of use cases that specifically require a different
>    description for the placeholder/poster/firstframe image than for the
>    video itself.  These use cases would need to cover every normative
>    requirement identified in any Change Proposal which might accompany
>    the request to reopen the issue based on new information.  Ideally
>    evidence for these use cases would be provided in the form of real
>    world deployments of videos on the web.

I will pursue this advice from the Chairs and will advise when said
evidence is ready. In the interim the Formal Objection remains, based upon
the reason stated. 

JF
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 16:11:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:26 GMT