Re: CFC Web Survey

> On Jul 13, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> James, 
> 
> In the prior week the web survey showed that we did not have consensus to keep the static or text role in ARIA 1.1.

That's fine.

> It also concluded that we needed to make a determination as to whether to keep the aria-roledescription=“” hack to override the role or to ignore it. Since the 2 were interlocked in that some members were expecting to keep the “hack” if they were to not vote to move the text/static role to ARIA 2.0. 

You may be missing my core point. It is merely that "moving out of 1.1" does not equal "moving into 2.0." 

> This week we tied the too together for these reasons. It was the resolution to have a survey to move the static/text role to ARIA 2.0 and to decide which approach to take with the setting of the role description to null. Tie the two together and having the survey provided greater clarity for the group as to what they wanted todo. 
> 
> It is important that you also look at the previous week’s survey. The two are tied together. So, in this instance the group felt that the survey reflected what was necessary to reflect the groups decision and therefore the group is comfortable with the survey. 
> 
> As for what people would call the role of text - static or other name the group did not reach consensus on that for the call either. So, even the name is up in the air as is whether to support the text role. The group will decide what to do with text role, or whatever the group chooses to call it, in ARIA 2.0. 

I think many members the working group are still conflating the "role formerly known as text" with other roles related to text editing, when it's functionally more similar to a subclass of the image role. Regardless, we're in agreement for the time being that it's not on the table for 1.1.

Jame

> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 13, 2016, at 6:18 PM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com <mailto:jcraig@apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks. I responded, but have one clarifying response for the record.
>> 
>> The question of whether to move the text role should have been separate from the question about the null role description value. It also should have been phrased to ~"move the text or static role out of 1.1" (which I support) rather than ~"move the text or static role specifically to 2.0" (which I don't necessarily agree with). In either case, since there was no way to vote against the 2.0 version, that portion of the survey cannot be binding, and am stating this for the record. The right to raise the static or text role for a later 1.x release (not 1.1) remains, regardless of the outcome of this survey.
>> 
>> Future surveys should also be worded so that the subsequent questions cannot contradict each other. In other words, if both questions had a majority Yes vote (or a No vote), we'd be at a stalemate and would have to run a new survey. 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com <mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Since you both have been out on vacation I wanted to point you to 2 CFCs that were issued last week. 
>>> 
>>> We have a CFC Web Survey that wraps up Wednesday evening. In the prior week meeting we ran a web survey that showed we did not have consensus to adopt the text role in ARIA 1.1. What was left is to determine how to handle the null value of aria-roledescription:
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0016.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0016.html>
>>> 
>>> Please take the survey prior to our ARIA Working Group meeting this Thursday.
>>> 
>>> We also have a CFC to publish a pseudo last call version of ARIA 1.1 pending the survey. 
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0017.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Jul/0017.html>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>> 
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>