- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 16:23:00 -0600
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Benjamin, > Some counter-arguments you might wish to address: Thanks for your comments. Much appreciated. Best Regards, Laura On 11/8/10, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Laura Carlson > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've drafted a Change Proposal for ISSUE-122. >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/TextAlternativesIssue122 > > Thanks Laura. > >> Ideas for improvement appreciated. > > Some counter-arguments you might wish to address: > > * The change proposal suggests the HTML WG defers to the WCAG WG > for guidance on text alternatives because WCAG WG is chartered to > provide guidance on making content accessible to people with > disabilities. But making content accessible to people with > disabilities is not the only use of text alternatives. Other uses > include making content media-independent for all users (so that, for > example, users can browse web content from a text browser), making > content more robust (so that, for example, users see text alternatives > when resources fail to transfer over the network), facilitating > automation (e.g. allowing an automated click on a named image > control), and enabling indexing and discovery of non-text content via > search engines. WCAG WG is not chartered to provided guidance on these > other uses. > > * The change proposal implies that WGs working on language > specifications should defer to WGs chartered to provide guidance on > cross-cutting concerns like accessibility for examples on how to use > those language specifications. How should cases where multiple > cross-cutting concerns, for which different WGs have responsibility, > be handled? For example, whose role is it provide guidance when a text > alternative includes a change of language? WCAG WG or the > Internationalization Core Working Group, chartered "to help > specification writers, web masters, content authors, and others > involved in developing and implementing the Web understand the issues > involved and the techniques available with regard to supporting > international use of Web technology" > (http://www.w3.org/2006/10/i18n-recharter/core-charter)? Isn't the > group designing the markup language a good group to provide guidance > that pulls such cross-cutting concerns together for that markup > language? > > * An important aspect of switching the responsibility for producing > guidance from HTML WG to WCAG WG is that it involves switching from an > group that is /comparatively/ open in terms of membership and > proceedings to a more closed group (people who are not working for a > W3C member can participate in HTML WG on request, most proceedings in > HTML WG operate on open mailing lists, the HTML WG has an open bug > tracker). Some participants may feel that more open groups produce > more effective guidance. > > * The change proposal suggests that text alternative provision is > "subjective". If it is /truly/ subjective then deferring to another > group cannot deliver more effective guidance, since they can only > offer yet another opinion. This is an argument for eliminating such > guidance altogether. > > * Diversity of opinions suggests issues are complicated, but does > not necessarily mean they are subjective. For example, you mention > that some users want descriptions of mood-setting images and some > don't. One can imagine markup which would allow user agents to present > such descriptions only to the users who want them. Such potential > feature changes suggest that the group designing the language should > confront these complicated issues head-on, not farm them out to a > third party. > > * The change proposal suggests that tasking WCAG WG with producing > guidance "Helps in the goal of modularizing W3C documents", citing an > email from Tim which in turn cites a blog post by Tim > (http://www.w3.org/QA/2008/01/modularity). In that post, Tim explains > that the basic benefit of modularization is "that one module can > evolve or be replaced without affecting the others." But guidance > about usage of features cannot be safely evolved or replaced without > affecting the design of features, and vice versa. Splitting these > tasks between different working groups does not provide effective > modularization. > > * Disagreements about guidance for text alternatives reflect > disagreements about what HTML features should be included for > providing text alternatives (e.g. should we include "longdesc"?) about > the basic semantics of features of those features (does "alt" > represent a short text alternative or a full text substitute?), at > least as much as disagremeents about what constitutes a good text > alternatives. Conforming features and HTML semantics are inalienable > concerns of the HTML WG. > > -- > Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 22:24:04 UTC