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

Re: 48-hour Consensus Call - Expedited Formal Objection on HTML Issue-204 Decision

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:16:42 -0500
To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Steve Holbrook <shh@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <OF5DF06533.1B7BDDA8-ON86257A77.0067BEF6-86257A77.0069EE3C@us.ibm.com>

I agree that tremendous progress has been made the changes toward removing
changes that impact existing implementations of aria-descrribedby. Most
importantly, I am encouraged by the more open dialog that I hope will avoid
such issues from occurring in the future. For these reasons I support
withdrawal of the two halves of the PF Formal Objection.

I encourage that ARIA remain integrated in the HTML5 specification, just as
we are working to do with SVG, and I believe the current process with this
type of improved collaboration and communication across companies and
working groups should enable that to happen.

Best Regards,
Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger



From:	James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
To:	Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>,
Cc:	Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
            <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Date:	09/10/2012 03:34 PM
Subject:	Re: 48-hour Consensus Call - Expedited Formal Objection on HTML
            Issue-204 Decision



I'd also like to go on the record against the Formal Objection, as I was
away on vacation at the time of the 48-hour consensus call, and I believe
Cynthia may have been as well. Despite some lack of clarity in the
particular language, I believe the spirit of the change is sound, and we
are currently trying to resolve the technical complaints resulting from the
wording.


On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I realize that it has been more than 48 hours, but wanted to go on record
against this formal objection.
>
> The sentence cited in the FO:
>
> "User Agents are encouraged to expose the full semantics of hidden
elements to Assistive Technology when such elements are referenced from
WAI-ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby."
>
> This sentence is non-normative and aspirational.  It encourages user
agents to build new features that would allow in-page, hidden long
descriptions.  As non-normative text, it does not define anything, and
cannot redefine aria.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:26 AM
> To: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats
> Cc: Judy Brewer
> Subject: 48-hour Consensus Call - Expedited Formal Objection on HTML
Issue-204 Decision
>
> Colleagues:
>
> On 22 August next the WAI Protocols & Formats WG teleconference meeting
will consider consensus support to file a formal objection on the HTML-WG's
Issue-204 decision with a request for expedited handling.
>
> As usual, if there is objection in the working group to such a consensus
position, please respond by replying to this message no later than noon,
Boston Time, on Wednesday, 15 August.
>
> Also, if there are suggestions for edits to this draft objection, please
reply here to this message with your suggestions.
>
> <Begin Objection Draft>
>
> Last week the HTML Working Group formally decided to specify certain
behavior relating to ARIA in the HTML 5 specification. Their decision is
documented at:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0111.html
>
> Noting that the HTML-WG decision "redefines how aria specification is
defined,"
> The PF ArIA Task Force reached the following resolution at its regular
weekly teleconference on 20 August as documented at:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2012/08/20-pf-minutes.html
>
> *RESOLUTION: ARIA TF supports a formal objection by PF to HTML WG issues
> 204 decision.*
>
> The HTML-WG decision determined to include the following two statements
in Sec. 7.1 of the HTML 5 specification:
>
> 1.)		 "It would be fine, however, to use the ARIA aria-describedby
attribute
> to refer to descriptions that are themselves hidden."
>
> 2.)		 "User Agents are encouraged to expose the full semantics of
hidden=""
> elements to Assistive Technology when such elements are referenced from
WAI-ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby=""."
>
> The specifics of this HTML-WG decision, including the ARIA behavior here
noted, can be found at:
>
>
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden#Details
>
> The HTML-WG and its chairs have been informed that the PF-WG strongly
opposes this specification on several occasions, including most recently on
its Issue-204 WBS, where PF's ARIA Task Force Chair provided extensive
technical objections to this specification, and PF's Chair noted that ""If
the HTML-WG wishes to negotiate additional ARIA behavior for its HTML 5
specifications, it should propose the particulars to the PF-WG."
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-204-objection-poll/results
>
> PF notes that the HTML-WG has successfully worked with PF in the past to
achieve appropriate ARIA related specifications in HTML 5, most recently in
HTML's Issue-199:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0122.html
>
> Yet, in this instance, our objections were completely discounted in the
HTML decision which states:
>
> "... there were a number of objections that apply to both proposals, and
in at least one case are made by the same individual against both
proposals.  If the people who felt this way had presented a third proposal,
then these arguments would have been considered."
>
> The "people" referred to in this statement are the ARIA Task Force Chair
and the PF-WG Chair. In any case, PF cannot accept a process which cedes
decisions on ARIA behavior to the HTML-WG, which is what creating the
suggested "third proposal" would have achieved. We note that ARIA is a
chartered deliverable of the PF-WG, and we strongly insist that other
Working Group specifications relating to ARIA must be mutually agreed, and
not determined by the HTML-WG alone out of a menu of competing proposals.
>
> The PF-WG therefore requests expedited handling of this formal objection
to the above cited HTML-WG decision. We request that:
>
> 1.)		 HTML-WG be directed to remove the
> above cited sentences immediately.
>
> 2.)		 HTML-WG be directed to work with PF-WG to jointly agree on
appropriate
> language for Sec. 7.1 of the HTML 5 specification, should the HTML-WG
continue to desire language change in that section that would refer to ARIA
behavior.
>
> PF-WG notes again that ARIA is a PF-WG chartered deliverable, and
strongly protests another working group's unilateral attempt to define ARIA
behavior. Because we believe HTML-WG intends to base additional decisions
on its Issue-204 decision, we respectfully request our objection recieve
immediate expedited handling so that any damage may be kept minimal.
>
> Janina Sajka, PF-WG Chair
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> Janina Sajka,		 Phone:		 +1.443.300.2200
> 		 		 		 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> 		 		 Email:		 janina@rednote.net
>
> The Linux Foundation
> Chair, Open Accessibility:		 http://a11y.org
>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair,		 Protocols & Formats		 http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
> 		 Indie UI
http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/
>
>
>
>






graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:18:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:34 UTC