Re: RESOLUTION to modify text alternative change proposal and reject WAI CG's consensus recommendation

Hi, John:

I'm top posting my response, because I simply want to acknowledge and
accept your criticism in the friendly spirit I believe you offered it
in.

I should have not only explained to the group assembled in Birmingham,
but also seen to it that the IRC capture clearly, at the beginning of
each day, noted that what might/would be called "resolution:" in the
log, should be understood as a candidate resolution for consideration by
the full TF according to our consensus process. I accept your excellent
suggestion that we need to do this, should we find ourselves again in a
similar circumstance.

Janina


John Foliot writes:
> Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> > Several times during the F2F we reiterated the important point that what
> > we actually meant was candidate resolutions for the TF's consideration
> > per our consensus policy:
> 
> Hi Janina,
> 
> As I too registered frustration, I'd like to respond.  While you may have
> indeed discussed the fact that what was being tracked were "candidate"
> resolutions, a quick review of the minutes from both days does not show
> one instance of either the word "candidate" nor the phrase "candidate
> resolution", so if that was the specific intent and purpose, that critical
> piece of information was never actually recorded - again more than likely
> a failure of trying to track active discussions via scribing and IRC (and
> this is *NOT* a condemnation of the scribing process, which appears to
> have been as well managed as could be expected), rather than any kind of
> "evil plot" by those in attendance.
> 
> I also stated in my comment that while I felt some sense of frustration,
> it was not going to be something that I was going to spend a lot of energy
> on - let's move on.
> 
> As a member of our Task Force however, I think we should at the very least
> acknowledge that:
> a) some confusion exists/existed, 
> b) that now the confusion has been rectified, 
> c) that we learn from this issue to avoid it repeating, 
> d) and that conversation has resumed on the list, which is a good thing.
> 
> Laura Carlson wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > I don't see anything in the resolution that takes this away,
> > 
> > Oh but it does.
> > 
> > * An error is something that is invalid.
> > * A warning is something that is valid.
> 
> Hi Laura,
> 
> I am concerned about getting bogged down in the semantics of a word. Where
> are you taking these definitions from? Henri's validators.nu (which,
> AFAIK, is really the only HTML5 validator we have available to us)?
> 
> Frankly, we can call it 'green jello' if the behavior we got was that when
> an <img> lacked an @alt value the author was taken to the WAI-authored
> page on how to fix this 'broken-ness'. To me, *THAT* is what we want to
> have, rather than get stuck over a word. If your students forgot to
> include an @alt value, and got transported to the remediation page
> constantly, they'd learn quick enough that to avoid that trip, get the
> @alt in there....
> 
> I've stated my preference for using the stronger ERROR, and that, like
> Cynthia, I believe that whatever we call <img> without @src should also be
> what we call <img> without @alt, because without both, the thing is
> broken.  However, if, as Janina suggests, the fastest way to the bigger
> win (pointing to WAI Guidance for repair/remediation) is to call it a
> warning, then I say go for the bigger win.
> 
> Just my $0.02
> 
> JF

-- 

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 Friday, 9 April 2010 23:02:41 UTC