- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:04:48 +1100
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Same here (as early in the morning Lyon time as possible). Thanks, Silvia. On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote: > Either works for me to the point that *time of day* is more important to > know: Lyon is 8 hours ahead of California, so any afternoon sessions are > smack-dab in the middle of the night. Thus my preference would be for as > early in the day as possible: 9:00 AM Tuesday or Thursday represents 1:00 AM > for this region of the world - late but not impossible. > > Cheers! > > JF > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Frank Olivier [mailto:Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:40 AM >> To: John Foliot; 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt' >> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' >> Subject: Media Accessibility Discussion (Was RE: Adopting the media >> accessibility requirements)) >> >> (Sending mail on behalf of Janina, who is unable to send mail at the >> moment due to IPv6 issues) >> >> P&F is interested in setting up a time for a media accessibility >> discussion that all interested parties can attend/call in to; Tuesday >> (November 2nd) or Thursday (November 4th) are the two best days for the >> TPAC attendees to do this. Which days/times work best for other >> participants that are not in Lyon? >> >> Thanks >> Frank Olivier >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot >> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:16 AM >> To: 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt' >> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' >> Subject: RE: Adopting the media accessibility requirements >> >> Aryeh Gregor wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Philip Jägenstedt >> > <philipj@opera.com> >> > wrote: >> > > Since the two groups involved here (browser implementors and >> > > accessibility experts) have obvious issues communicating with each >> > other, it >> > > would be helpful if we were all involved in the discussions as they >> > happen, >> > > rather than communicating via requirements lists. >> > >> > I agree with this general point. It seems like right now, task >> forces >> > are formed, discuss things amongst themselves at length, and only at >> > the very end present their findings to implementers and spec editors. >> >> >> Aryeh, you are more than welcome (nay, encouraged) to participate in >> the Accessibility Task Force, and specifically on this topic of media >> user requirements. As the co-chair of the media sub-team I have >> consistently and regularly asked for feedback from the larger group >> about this document, with very few people actually bothering to >> respond. >> >> See for example: >> >> "...huge need to get this done for yesterday -- media subteam committed >> to knuckle down, but need specific feedback from non-subteam members >> ... even if only have 15 minutes, please consult >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist and >> tag with a11y requirements; goal is to complete over weekend so can >> discuss at TF telecon next week" >> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/09-html-a11y-minutes.html >> >> "ms: we need implementers to give tech assessment of impact >> jf: this has been a largely discussed topic for weeks," >> http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-a11y-minutes.html >> >> "JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements >> into technical requirements ... worked through 50% of requirements ... >> encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer feedback and >> comments as things progress ... need to have technical requirements and >> user requirements stable enough to advance to the HTML WG next week -- >> perhaps 10 days left before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain" >> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-minutes.html >> >> ---- >> >> Further, the User Requirements document in question has been published >> and available for review and comment since late August, and was >> specifically announced *nine weeks ago* today as needing/wanting more >> feedback from the larger community: >> >> "We are to the point where we need to begin engaging the wider HTML 5 >> community in understanding the ramifications of these requirements, and >> in collaborating on appropriate solutions. Thus, we invite you to >> become familiar with the requirements, ask questions, offer >> suggestions, and generally engage with us on next steps." (Thu, 26 Aug >> 2010) >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0327.html >> >> >> There are 51 registered members of the Accessibility Task Force, >> including Ian Hickson and Philip Jägenstedt >> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force#participants) who receive the >> public-a11y mailing list, which includes these weekly minutes, the >> minutes from the media sub-teams weekly (open) conference calls, as >> well as all correspondence to the list (and while not 100%, many of the >> emails that deal with media issues have been prefixed in the subject >> line with [media]). >> >> Finally, Janina's note of Aug. 26th was sent to the larger HTML WG >> public list (443 group participants), of which Ian, Philip and you are >> also recipients, so you cannot say that we have not solicited feedback >> before this - you may not have read it or acted upon it, but no-one but >> you can control that, and the Accessibility Task Force cannot be blamed >> for that. If you or others have further suggestion on how to ensure >> that this is an open dialog, please feel free to offer those >> suggestions, but to arrive at the end of the party complaining that it >> started without you is disingenuous at best, and simply unfair. The >> bulk of the discussion on how we arrived at these User Requirements >> happened over the summer months and occurred, for the most part, on the >> mailing list and via our weekly conference calls. >> >> >> >> > The latter are then forced to either accept the findings on the basis >> > of authority, or demand detailed explanation of the rationale for >> > every finding before they accept it. The latter is usually what >> > happens in practice except for very minor or obvious changes, and in >> > that case, it would make much more sense if the implementers/spec >> > editors were involved in the discussions from the beginning. >> >> The editor is free and welcome to join us in any way he chooses: he has >> chosen to not do so - period. >> >> Implementers from the major browsers (with the exception of Opera) have >> been weekly participants on the media sub-team conference calls, and >> Silvia Pfeiffer (representing Mozilla), Eric Carlson (representing >> WebKit) and Sean Hayes (representing Microsoft) all contributed to the >> authoring and editing of the User Requirements document; in fact, Eric >> Carlson and I actually met face-to-face twice, here in my office, while >> we worked on this document together (a pleasant and enlightening >> experience for both of us, I believe). >> Thus to suggest that the implementers were not consulted or involved is >> simply false. >> >> Would I like to see Opera and Chrome participants more active in our >> work? >> Yes - but I do not have the power to insist that they do so; it's >> completely their choice. However to actively not involve oneself in the >> process, and then complain that you've not been involved in the process >> is a hyperbolic argument that has little traction or grounds for >> sympathy. >> >> >> > Or >> > alternatively, that task force findings be written in a persuasive >> > rather than authoritative manner, and present the evidence and >> > reasoning for their decisions in a form that will convince people who >> > aren't domain experts. >> > >> > In the end, the implementers are the ones who have to make the >> > judgment on what features they'll implement. When a proposed >> > accessibility, internationalization, or other feature requires a >> > tradeoff of some kind, it's impossible for them to make that tradeoff >> > intelligently unless they're given the full background on why the >> > feature is needed, as Henri says. >> >> This is exactly why we spent so much time ensuring that the user >> requirements document was as complete and accurate as we could make it, >> with both a prose narrative on the issue, as well as specific bullet >> points outlining how these might likely manifest. It is also now >> serving as the foundation for the creation of the Media Accessibility >> Checklist >> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist) >> where we are taking these User Requirements and mapping them against >> WCAG, UAAG, as well as a subjective Must/Should/May evaluation, all in >> an effort to help implementers further address and understand the >> numerous issues that accessible media brings to the table. Everyone who >> has already been directly involved with this effort is aware of the >> enormity of the issues, and of the work effort that will be required to >> meet all of these User needs. >> >> What is extremely important to understand however is that there can be >> no "trade-off" when it comes to accessibility; this is counter to a >> core W3C Mission Statement, and would likely also land us in >> significant legal quagmires. I think any and all of the legal teams >> associated with the browser implementers would have a very difficult >> time defending 'accessibility' to some user-groups while deliberately >> not supporting >> others: I'm no lawyer but I welcome you to investigate that statement >> further if you doubt my 'basis of authority'. >> >> >> > We aren't going to get anywhere if >> > we have the stone wall of a task force separating experts on some >> > particular matter from everyone else, with only limited communication >> > over the wall. >> >> Communication is a 2-way street: we've been 'actively broadcasting' but >> have you been actively listening? Feeding back? If there is an >> appearance of a stone wall to you, it is one of your own creation: >> we've in fact been trying to build a bridge, not a wall. >> >> >> > It would be to everyone's benefit if all concerned parties were >> > involved from the start. Hopefully that way implementers will learn >> > more about accessibility, accessibility experts will learn more about >> > implementation, and more workable proposals can be crafted from the >> > get-go. >> >> And with the *direct involvement* of implementers from most of the >> browser developers from the start, we believe we've come a long way >> towards meeting that goal. I think that it would be fair to say that >> Eric's, Silvia's and Sean's awareness and understanding of >> accessibility issues has been enhanced since we started this work, and >> I know *my* understanding of the technical requirements, issues and >> difficulties has increased significantly by working with these folks. >> >> So I once again extend an invitation to you Aryeh to join us in the >> media sub-team's efforts: there is still lots to do, and any and all >> help is gratefully welcomed. >> >> Cheers! >> >> JF >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 02:05:43 UTC