- From: 'Janina Sajka' <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 11:13:04 -0400
- To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Janina Sajka'" <janina@rednote.net>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, "'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "wai-cg@w3.org" <wai-cg@w3.org>
Cynthia Shelly writes: > First, on the resolutions... Those are F2F resolutions, which are to be discussed on the list this week, with final resolutions made at the telecon on Thursday morning next. I'll let Janina, Mike and Michael speak to that in more detail. > > Second, on the proposal itself. My main worry about warnings is that, particularly in HTML 5, there are an awful lot of warnings, about an awful lot of things which are far less important than alt text. I worry about the teachable moment being lost is a sea of less important warnings. > By agreeing to warning, we have hopefully negotiated a specific WCAG pointer. Had we stuck insisting on error, we would not have gotten that, or so we were strongly advised. In fact, the error would have been imprecise. It would have just said "error," with no indication of what the error was, let alone of where to find an explanation. So, the choice came down to a judgement call between political parity but without the opportunity to teach the appropriate remedy, or the normative warning that pointed directly to WCAG. Inequitable when viewed against how a missing src is treated? Perhaps so. I certainly think so. I say it quanitifes the inequity. But, would I rather the teaching opportunity, even in the midst of other warnings? Yes, that's how I came to change my vote. Clearly, we need to discuss this further. I'm sorry everyone on TF was unable to join us for the Face to Face. But, we always knew that wouldn't happen. Janina
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 15:13:46 UTC