W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

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

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:15:12 -0400
Message-ID: <4A64C240.90206@intertwingly.net>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> Joshue O Connor wrote:
>>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>  (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.)
>> Ian: such use of passive tense is unnecessarily provocative.  One
>> possibility is that your unnamed source or sources are mistaken.
>>
>>> and again.
>>>
>>>> Can the WAI commit to approaching accessibility issues holistically,
>>>> instead of following one-solution agendas as I was recently informed is
>>>> explicitly being done with the summary="" issue?
>>> What is that supposed to mean? We are /all/ about holistic solutions,
>>> however the current vote (as I understand it) is to be about @summary as
>>> it currently is. While we (PF) do wish to talk about engineering a
>>> better solution (as I am sure we can come up with one) this is /not/ on
>>> the table at the moment.
>> Joshue: clearly holistic means different things to different people.
>> Identifying text as specifically targeting a set of individuals, and thereby
>> excluding others, is apparently not something that some considers
>> "holistic".  Others feel that identifying text as being potentially
>> redundant for those who are fully sighted, and thereby providing an option
>> to render or hide this information based on user preference and abilities is
>> the result a holistic approach to the issue.
>>
>> This situation is made more complicated by the fact that @summary is already
>> implemented by a number of tools, had limited uptake on the public web, and
>> often appears to be misused.
>>
>> Action 128 is assigned to you.  My suggestion is that you focus on it.
> 
> Sam, I realize that you're frustrated at the debate, and this cycle of
> discussion, but sometimes you have a habit of shooting down legitimate
> concerns and questions, and leaving one feeling like we've just been
> sent to stand in the corner, and reflect on our general misbehaving.
> 
> Frankly, this cycle would not be happening if there really were
> genuinely open approaches to submitting alternative proposals. I'm
> sorry that the W3C saw fit to open the can of worms by allowing the
> process that started in the WhatWG to continue into the W3C, but
> that's really the W3C's problem.
> 
> If you're really serious about alternative proposals, then the WhatWG
> HTML 5 specification should be considered just one of a variety, and
> others should be linked directly from the front page, and the process
> carefully delimited, again on the front page, so folks don't have an
> assumption that the WhatWG version is the de facto version. That it is
> potentially one of many. Each proposal, each group of editors, should
> be given the same level of prominence and front page access. A note to
> that effect should also be posted at the WhatWG.

To get listed as such will require a decision.  See Decision History[2]. 
  I personally would support such a decision.

> Otherwise, this whole process is nothing more than a way to get people
> running around in circles, while Ian's HTML 5 slips through the cracks
> because supposedly no one is submitting proposals, when they are, but
> they're being ignored, back channel linked, and forgotten.

> Not having a gatekeeper would have prevented all of this, but the W3C
> put in a gatekeeper. And no, neither you, nor Chris, are the
> gatekeepers. We can pretend otherwise, but that just leads to yet more
> confusion, resentment, discouragement, and general unhappiness with
> the HTML 5 effort.

Hindsight is 20/20.  I will note that Ian has done that has prevented 
Manu from producing a document.  His role as a gatekeeper is greatly 
exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain).

My frustration is that more people haven't followed Manu's lead -- so 
far.  Presumably, given time this will work out.

> Laura's recent proposal is nothing more than a group of people trying
> to level the playing field. She certainly didn't submit it because it
> was fun to do so, and she has nothing better to do. Perhaps a little
> respect might have gone a little to reassure people that their
> concerns really do matter, rather than folks feeling like no matter
> what we submit, it will just get dropped into a black hole [1].

If she wishes to produce a document that gets listed on the front page, 
I will ask Mike to provide her with CVS access, and once produced we can 
seek a Decision.

> I know that Last Call is coming up, issues are being brought up again
> and again, we can't seem to make head way, and a lot of people are
> unhappy, and you most likely feel right in the middle of it, but blame
> the responsible people at the W3C for the problems, not us.
> 
> My 2 cents worth, since this is the 2 cent email list.

Much appreciated.  Seriously.

>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Josh
>> - Sam Ruby
> 
> [1] http://www.cssquirrel.com/comic/?comic=28

[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 19:16:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT