W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: GL 2.2: new benefit (low computer literacy)

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 00:52:29 -0500
To: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050606055231.038721CC36F@m14.spamarrest.com>

  


> > GV:  There is nothing to be removed since this was just a proposal.

JOE> I'll keep that in mind. Proposals, particularly the very worst ones,
have an amazing ability to find their way into drafts and become unkillable.


GV: any proposal and any terminology can be changed by the group at any time
if it decides to do so.  The key is that the group has to decide it - not
just one or a few people. 

JOE> I'm in my second year of telling you ...

GV: you can skip these prefixes - they don't add any content to your
argument and all of us have things in the guidelines that we have been
wanting to have fixed for very long times.  But we wait til we get to them.
And - if we cannot convince the others - then we don't get them.   Usually
if that happens we listen very carefully to see what it is that we are
missing - or failing to communicate.  We have a very bright group when we
work as a whole.  We all say things that are off target a one time or
another - but with the whole group we work things out.    

JOE> ... that requiring that headings and lists "make sense" out of context
ain't gonna work, for example.

GV: I have a problem with that one too.  But so far I haven't been able to
make my case well enough -- or to propose acceptable language that addresses
the benefit that this gives to users.  But I don't lose my temper or rant at
people.  And at level 3 I guess I don't have a problem.  Since that is for
sites that really want to go out of their way to be very accessible/usable. 

JOE> But, you know, it's a question of who makes the proposal and who
objects to it, is it not?

GV:  Apparently not.  Since the chairs routinely do not have their proposals
accepted.   I have found however that those who make considered proposals
that try to address the issues raised by others - and that do it in a
constructive way  - are always listened to carefully.    But then again - a
good thought pushed in our faces is also accepted if its value is seen.  The
problem with that approach though is that there may be somewhat less desire
to re-read it a bunch of times to get all the nuance - as might be done with
a more considered posting. 

In the end however, the only things that make it are the ones that the group
as a whole agrees with.   And it doesn't matter who proposes or objects - if
they cannot convince the majority.  

The chairs routinely propose things (and pose objections) that don't get
accepted because someone else comes up with a problem or a better answer.
There are some things where the chairs still think they have a better idea -
but it never gets accepted.  That's life.  All we can do it try,  - and
listen.  

We don't often have votes since we almost always work out language we can
all live with.  In fact I can't remember the last time something was decided
with a vote.   We often take straw polls to find everyone's position and
issues.  Then we try to work out language that everyone can live with.
Occasionally we may have to go with 'broad consensus' (meaning that most of
the group agrees they can live with it), particularly here at the end where
all the tough issues get pushed back to.   But up to now we have almost
always decided things with Unanimity - consensus of all. 

The chairs would like to create or identify wording that allows us to have
unanimity for as much of the wording as possible. And broad consensus (or
even unanimity if that is possible) of the outside world as well.    We will
then work for broad consensus of the working group on any remaining points
where we don't get unanimity of the group.  

This is all going to be tense as we try to get through this - and address
everyone's concerns.  Please keep in mind that we are always looking for
guidelines that the working group can agree on - unanimously wherever
possible.  

Thanks for your efforts Joe.  They are appreciated.  Not everyone agrees
with all of them.   And some need further work to get them in shape.  But
your input is valued and people are listening.

Gregg V
Co-chair
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 05:52:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC