W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2010

Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force%2

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:32:46 -0700
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, www-archive Archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>
Message-id: <9BC481CE-0383-406A-98A1-4C27B217547C@apple.com>
To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
(-public-html, +chairs)

This seems to be morphing into a process discussion. Can we please  
take it off of public-html?


On Apr 22, 2010, at 12:28 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>  
> wrote:
>> Shelley Powers writes:
>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM,  <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
>>> Janina, you didn't respond on each individual item.
>> Yes, it was our group decision to aggregate our response for our own
>> convenience. That is true. Whether or not that is appropriate is
>> certainly arguable.
>> Please understand, though, that we did consider each of your  
>> proposals
>> individually. Some we ruled out of scope for the TF. Where we had a
>> concern, we discussed each separately, as I and others have pointed  
>> out.
> This is confusing, Janina.
> Your resolution rejected _all_ of the change proposals related to
> removing elements, but you just wrote that some of these the group
> felt were outside of the scope of the accessibility work group. If
> this is true, if I understood correctly, then it was incorrect to
> blanket reject all of the change proposals.
> I'm not sure if meeting minutes or emails outside of change proposals
> and counter proposals count as effective rationales in the decision
> process. I guess the co-chairs will have to decide that one. For
> myself, no offense intended for the minute taker (I know how difficult
> a task this is), I find the minutes too difficult to follow in order
> to effectively respond except at a higher level. I'll do my best, but
> I'm not sure, now, which of the elements you considered within the
> province of the TF, and which you felt were out of scope.
>> Janina
> Shelley
>>> We shouldn't have to look through meeting minutes and emails in  
>>> order
>>> to find responses in regards to each element. These were separate
>>> change proposals. Because they happened at the same time should not
>>> have impacted on how the group responded to these _individual_  
>>> change
>>> proposals.
>>> In particular, the group wasn't even interested in several of the
>>> elements. From the discussion, the view on some seemed to be
>>> indifferent, at best. That, to me, is not reflected in your
>>> resolution.
>>> At a minimum, you could have posted about each of these items as a
>>> separate poll item, and then allowed your group to voice their
>>> interests over each, individually.
>>> Regardless, the only official response I see to this group on these
>>> items is a single paragraph. That is the only item to which I can
>>> respond.
>>>> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>>> I also wish this discussion would happen in the HTML WG, because my
>>> emails get blocked to the html-ally email group.
>>> Shelley
>> --
>> Janina Sajka,   Phone:  +1.443.300.2200
>>                sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
>> Chair, Open Accessibility       janina@a11y.org
>> Linux Foundation                http://a11y.org
>> Chair, Protocols & Formats
>> Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 19:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:43:40 UTC