Re: PROPOSAL: Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5

sam wrote:>I am particularly puzzled by the stance "we don't make formal
replies to individuals" and "in particular HTML WG editors...are encouraged
to make use of >[WAI XTECH Mailing List and HTML WG Teleconferences]".

I think you are conflating messages here, the one laura sent and you quoted
from has no official connection or endorsement with any WAI group.

Your out of context quotation of a reply by Janina to Ian appears to be on
the subject of the protocols for inter working group group communication on
a formal level. Something which i do not understand, but thought that both
you and Janina would being chairs and all.

best regards
Stevef

2009/7/19 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>
>>> To that end, we propose that the HTML working group adopt the following
>>> statement as an official procedure and publish it in HTML working group Web
>>> space.
>>>
>>> Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5
>>>
>>> Procedure Overview:
>>>
>>> The HTML WG will look to the W3C WAI groups for guidance, listen to their
>>> advice, and collaborate with them to reach mutually agreeable accessibility
>>> solutions. Furthermore, collaboration will be promoted in a pro-active
>>> manner, i.e., whenever possible, design features known or foreseen to have
>>> an impact on accessibility will be explored and discussed with the Protocols
>>> and Formats Working Group (PFWG) [2] prior to decisions in order to ensure
>>> mutually beneficial resolution of issues.
>>>
>>
>> Laura, in the interests of the collaboration you espouse, could you reply
>> to the e-mail I wrote to you last month?
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0669.html
>>
>>  Collaboration Framework:
>>>
>>> 1. Approach issues on the basis of the shared goal of making HTML 5
>>> the best solution for everyone, including people with disabilities.
>>>
>>
>> This should mean working for accessibility as a whole, not working for
>> specific features. For example, in the context of tables, it should mean
>> focusing on making tables accessible, not focusing on the summary=""
>> attribute to the exclusion of discussion of other solutions. (I have been
>> informed that in fact the WAI groups are more interested in voting on
>> whether summary="" is in or out than on voting on what accessibility
>> solutions should be used to make tables accessible, for instance.)
>>
>> Can we get a commitment from members of the WAI to approach issues on the
>> basis of the shared goal of making HTML 5 the best solution for everyone,
>> including people with disabilities and people without disabilities?
>>
>>  2. Work from concrete issues as to what in HTML 5 needs to be improved by
>>> asking PFWG to clearly identify accessibility functional requirements and
>>> provide rationale.
>>>
>>
>> I most recently tried to approach the WAI on the topic of <canvas>:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2009Jun/0093.html
>>
>> I've yet to receive any concrete functional requirements suggestions for
>> changes to the specification on this topic from the WAI (although I have
>> received several suggestions from members of the HTMLWG who are not members
>> of the WAI). I am still hopeful that the WAI will clearly identify
>> accessibility functional requirements and provide rationale. Is there any
>> chance the WAI could provide an ETA for such advice on this topic?
>>
>>  3. Listen to their input, ask for clarification, and work together to
>>> devise solutions to satisfy accessibility requirements.
>>>
>>
>> I have asked for clarifications, for example in June, regarding tables:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html
>>
>> I received an official reply to the effect that my questions were not
>> welcome because they were not from a group:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0260.html
>>
>> ...and my reply to that, asking about which groups would qualify to get a
>> reply, received no replies at all:
>>
>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0262.html
>>
>>  4. Ask PFWG if proposed solutions meet accessibility requirements.
>>>  * If they say no, ask what functionality is still needed and
>>> continue the collaboration.
>>>
>>
>> As noted above, I did this with <canvas>, and received no concrete
>> replies. (I received many thanks, but no technical replies.)
>>
>> I look forward to further collaborations with the WAI, and hope that
>> concrete advice such as the advice you suggest that we ask for will be
>> forthcoming.
>>
>
> +1 to what Ian said.  Continuing where Ian left off:
>
> Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>>  * If they say no, ask what functionality is still needed and
>> continue the collaboration.
>>  * If they say yes, incorporate text for the mutually agreed upon
>> solution into the specification.
>>
>
> These options are available to every member of the HTML Working Group. Many
> members of WAI are members of the HTML Working Group.  Those that are not
> currently members but are interested in exercising the above options are
> also encouraged to join.
>
>  Collaboration Tools:
>>
>> Tools to facilitate the procedure include but are not limited to:
>>
>> * WAI XTECH Mailing List [3]
>> * PF's Caucus on HTML Issues Weekly Teleconference [4]
>> * Joint Task Forces/Ad Hoc Groups
>> * Joint Sessions at Face-to-Face Meetings
>> * HTML WG Teleconferences [5]
>> * W3C ESW Wiki [6]
>> * Tracker [7]
>>
>
> All of these exist as possibilities and many are actively being used.
>
>  All interested parties, in particular HTML WG editors, are encouraged
>> to make use of these collaboration tools and opportunities.
>>
>
> I am particularly puzzled by the stance "we don't make formal replies to
> individuals" and "in particular HTML WG editors...are encouraged to make use
> of [WAI XTECH Mailing List and HTML WG Teleconferences]".
>
>  Respectfully,
>>
>> Laura L. Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  Bruce Lawson <bruce@brucelawson.co.uk>
>>
>  Opera Software (good standing)
>
>  Catherine Roy <ecrire@catherine-roy.net>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  Debi Orton <oradnio@gmail.com>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
>>
>
>  Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
>>
>  (public) Invited expert (good standing)
>
>  Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
>>
>
>  Steve Faulkner <sfaulkner@paciellogroup.com>
>>
>  W3C Invited Experts (good standing)
>
> In a word, I am disappointed by this proposal.  In addition to the two
> things Ian is waiting on, I am waiting on text for a vote on the summary
> issue to be made available for a public review.
>
>
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/participation.html#Subscribin
>> [4] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/Caucus
>> [5] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Teleconferences
>> [6] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
>> [7] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker
>>
>> A copy of this proposal is also in the ESW Wiki at:
>> http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityIssueProcedure
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html