W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Moving forward with Issue-204

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:59:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD1F72C.8050209@intertwingly.net>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On 06/07/2012 11:26 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> Hello, All:
>
> It seems that people are waiting for me to try and move Issue-204
> forward. Allow me, then, to attempt in this email to cut to the core question that still
> separates the two Issue-204 CPs as I understand it. Can we, or can we
> not, agree to spec changes for Sec. 7.1 which will take us to a single
> CP on Issue-204 and avoid the WBS process? The two CPs in question are,
> of course:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
>
> While also suggesting more global author warnings, proponents of
> AllowAriaReferHidden have recently sought "must" requirements (or
> perhaps only "should" requirements) on user agents as respects
> Issue-204:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0128.html
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0129.html
>
> The rationale appears to be that to do so is no less burdensome than to
> create a11y support for canvas:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0130.html
>
> Meanwhile, PF has stated it cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user
> agents in the context of Issue-204:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0156.html
>
> Our concerns are broader than any engineering challenge. Rather, they
> are very much focused on the lack of demonstrated user benefit. Indeed,
> they also include concern over anticipated user harm. This was
> reiterated at the recent F2F and is summarised nicely at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0137.html
>
> So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user agents
> vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or "might"
> language vis a vis user agents?

 From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply 
by saying that they cannot live with a decision"

> My apologies if this question was not evident from my previous postings.

This question was evident, and can certainly be resolved via a survey.

At the F2F, it was noted that a SHALL in a draft change proposal would 
have had the effect of precluding potential future advances in improving 
accessibility.  Once that sentiment was expressed, it seemed to be one 
that everybody in the room, independent of what proposal they supported, 
agreed with.  This lead to a change to that proposal that would increase 
consensus.

If you would like to increase consensus, I would encourage you to find a 
similar statement.  If you don't think it is likely that you will find 
common ground with Jonas and others on this issue, then we should simply 
proceed to a survey.

> Janina

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 13:00:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:32 UTC