W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-flexbox] Transition Request, CSS Flexible Box Layout Level 1 to CR (updated)

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 08:34:39 -0500
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160218133439.GB1874@opera.rednote.net>
Hi, Fantasai:

A quick update with cc to the APA list ...

*	We reviewed our various views re Flexbox during the APA call on
*	10 February. This is minuted at:

	*	Next Wednesday 24 February we will make Flexbox our
	*	primary agendum. If you'd like to join our call, you'd
	*	be most welcome. I'll forward you the agenda early next
	*	week just in case.

So, if there's a draft you can share before our call next Wednesday,
that would be most timely.



fantasai writes:
> On 01/20/2016 08:57 AM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >Dear Fantasai, Colleagues:
> >
> >As promissed in my email below, I am hereby forwarding the APA (formerly
> >PF) concern with progressing the CSS Flexbox spec through to W3C TR.  We
> >believe there is a path to resolution, and we would hope to work with
> >CSS to achieve that resolution before the end of your CR on this
> >specification.
> >
> >APA supports the concerns expressed by IBM in an email at:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2016Jan/0025.html
> >
> >
> >I'm certain the concerns expressed in this email will be quite familiar.
> >We discussed them together most recently during our joint meeting at
> >TPAC 2015 in Sapporo:
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/2015/10/30-apa-minutes.html
> >
> >As the above minutes indicate, APA is reasonably satisfied that the
> >approach prototyped by Mozilla will satisfy our concerns. You'll recall
> >our Facebook participants mocked up a test for that during TPAC, and the
> >results were very encouraging.
> >
> >What is missing is the next steps agreed in Sapporo--and frankly, also
> >agreed during TPAC 2014 in Santa Cruz. We need the "best practices"
> >documentation to be written, tested, and appropriately incorporated in
> >W3C documents before this most useful and important, yet accessibility
> >challenging CSS spec moves beyond CR.
> >
> >Please suggest how we can move forward on this. My reading of the above
> >referenced minutes suggests CSS is understood to take the lead on this.
> Hi Janina,
> My recollection of the meeting in Sapporo on this issue was twofold:
>   1. APA had more discussion to do on this topic, as there wasn't
>      consensus in the room even among the APA folks. (You can see
>      cyns and MCK expressing opposing points of view in the minutes.)
>   2. The CSSWG indeed needs to draw up some "best practices" documentation,
>      and took this as an action item. This was assigned to my to-do list;
>      thank you for reminding me about it. =) I'll start working on this
>      next week. (Since I've volunteered to present on this topic at the
>      CSSWG meeting in Syndey two weeks from now, you should have at the
>      very least a solid outline pretty soon.)
> I will point out that this revision of Flexbox has more guidance on a11y
> than the previous, and we hope this will improve the chances of good
> tooling design.
> Thanks~
> ~fantasai


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 13:35:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:19 UTC