- From: Gregory J. Rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:12:07 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>
aloha, shelley! i quick point -- during the Face2Face, we DID stop to read each and every one of your proposals as a group, and anyone who had not previously read your proposals was explictly asked to do so by Janina and MikeSmith before commenting or voting... unfortunately, given the dynamic of a face2face, minutes often don't capture the amount of time spent on each item, oft leaving the impression that things were only alluded-to in passing... let me assure you, shelley, that -- from my perspective as a remote attendee at the face2face -- every effort was made by the chairs to give your proposals their due consideration, and there was a minority who wanted to "unbunch" your issues to discuss them individually; indeed, the issues you raised were considered 1 by 1 by the face2face, but -- finding what it perceived as common threads -- it was decided by a majority of participants that each issue you raised could be addressed in a comprehensive, rather than detailed manner; this disagreement is captured in the results of the survey on the proposals considered at the face2face: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5 gregory. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_ ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net> Cc: public-html-a11y@w3.org, Denis Boudreau <dboudreau@webconforme.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org> Sent: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:00:11 -0500 Subject: Re: General Response to the Accessibility Task force on Issues 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 > I appreciate the link to meeting minutes. > > I hope a more formal synopsis of the discussion is documented, > so that I can respond individually to the items. As it was, > there seemed to be only 4 or 5 people involved, and not > everyone seemed to disagree with my arguments. > > There were, also, flat out errors in some of the statements > made. the same as there are flat out errors in the counter- > proposal. However, I can respond directly to the counter- > proposal errors, but it's difficult to do the same with the > abbreviated summary given in meeting minutes. > > In addition, it would seem that not every person in the > discussion actually read my change proposals. The discussion > definitely didn't touch on many of the issues I discussed > related to the elements. > > For instance, neither the counter-proposal, nor the accessibility > group seem to have addressed the issue of the whether these elements > are going to achieve broad usage. The HTML5 elements are > inferior to the state of the art. It may be an inconvenient > truth, but web authors/developers are not going to use inferior options. > > Neither the resolution nor the counter-proposal mentioned the > costs to communities outside of the accessibility community or > the browser implementor community. Other than a vague reference > to having to write tutorials. > > There is real cost to other web communities, and not to weigh the > costs to other communities in the decisions is, well frankly, > irresponsible. > > Now, the group may balance the costs against benefits, but from the > discussion, the group seemed to see no cost at all. In fact, the > decision making seemed to be cavalier about potential negative impacts > to other groups. > > Again, I thank you for the link. Unfortunately, it generates more > questions rather than provides answers. > > Shelley ------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Thursday, 22 April 2010 17:13:09 UTC