W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > December 2011

Re: Request to re-open issue 131

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:17:15 -0600
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: chuck@jumis.com, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, dbolter@mozilla.com, franko@microsoft.com, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6B36C4DD.A795330D-ON86257965.003A8B56-86257965.003E00A8@us.ibm.com>

Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote on 12/09/2011 09:25:14 PM:

> From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
> Cc: chuck@jumis.com, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>,
> dbolter@mozilla.com, franko@microsoft.com, Maciej Stachowiak
> <mjs@apple.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, public-
> canvas-api@w3.org, public-html@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org
> Date: 12/09/2011 09:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Request to re-open issue 131
> On 12/09/2011 05:42 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> > I see Ian replaced the entire Canvas 2D API spec. without a
> >
> > http://dev.w3.org/html5/2dcontext/
> Should a formal proposal not be forthcoming, and should you be able to
> obtain testimonials from at least two major implementors that that they
> would be willing to implement your proposal should it be adopted, then
> you have nothing to worry about.  If you need to modify your Change
> Proposal(s) in order to obtain these testimonials, you have the
> opportunity to do so.  We've not established a deadline yet for this,
> but the earliest deadline we would impose would be late January by this
> point.  It could possibly even be later.
1. We are not in Candidate Recommendation phase. No such W3C process
requires implementations before CR.
2. Microsoft, IBM, and Mozilla were presenting a canvas accessibility
workshop for SXSW targeted for early March where we would be doing
implementations. By breaking process the HTML working group chairs
effectively broke the ability to implement the specification as you removed
all the caret and selection processing.

We already made a proposal which the chairs voted on and the chairs allowed
a proposal that has no implementation to come in and override it. No
browser manufacturer has implemented the new focus ring APIs in the edited
spec. For example, Webkit does not even have fallback content in it yet so
indicating where the focus ring is in fallback content on an accessible is
a very long way off right now.

3. Chrome follows the Firefox implementation for accessibility. I know this
as I work with both browser manufacturers.

So, what the chairs have done is responded by heresy by perhaps one chair
from Apple.

This is why W3C has a process and why companies like IBM participate in
standards efforts. The process is designed to take input from all
participating members and provides adequate time to allow members to
implement the specification. Not only did the chairs break process but they
also hindered implementations under way.

4. Caret and selection processing was removed. These were critical features
that drive magnifiers for low vision users. There is nothing in Ian's
change that supports those use cases which the chairs approved. Now,
perhaps Ian preferred a better API but no such replacement came forth in
the change. They were simply deleted.

> > Could you please clarify how this is consistent with the HTML working
> > groups decision policy or with the process you refer to below?
> There exists a document in CVS with Ian's name on it with the following
> text prominently in the frontmatter:
>      The publication of this document by the W3C as a W3C Working Draft
>      does not imply that all of the participants in the W3C HTML working
>      group endorse the contents of the specification. Indeed, for any
>      section of the specification, one can usually find many members of
>      the working group or of the W3C as a whole who object strongly to
>      the current text, the existence of the section at all, or the idea
>      that the working group should even spend time discussing the
>      concept of that section.
> If you would like to create a parallel document in CVS with your name on
> it and the same disclaimer, we will help you do that.  But I will state
> that there really is no need to do that.  Your Change Proposals are
> sufficient.
If our original change proposals were sufficient and they were indeed voted
on then why would the chairs allow an alternative (non-voted on spec.)?

The point being that our change proposals for Issue 131 were clearly not
sufficient as someone is simply able to overwrite them.

> I already stated why the Chairs elected to take this action.  If you
> have a problem with this, I encourage you to take this up with PLH.
> Mike Smith will assist you in this effort should you decide to go this
> route.
> Obviously, I would encourage you to focus on obtaining implementer
> testimonials instead of taking that path, but the choice is yours.
As I stated, we are not in CR. There should be no reason to do this at this
time. We were in the process of implementing them and the chairs torpedoed
the effort. Enterprise browser manufacturers want to implement a spec. that
is approved. The chairs killed that effort.

> > I also noticed Ian went into numerous related defects and added
> > for use cases, such as:
> >
> > We have on numerous occasions provided information on things like
> > providing the bounds of an object such as Frank Olivier presented at
> > TPAC. Please refer to the use cases minuted at the TPAC discussion.
> I'm pleased to see that things are progressing again.  As to Ian's
> request: since you state that the data is already publicly available, I
> encourage you to provide pointers to that data.
You were at the TPAC face to face and in fact sat in on Frank Olivier's
presentation. You are welcome to spend your cycles sending Ian a link to
the meeting minutes. The chairs created this situation - not the people
working on canvas accessibility.

Allowing this to happen raises some concerns for me. These are that the
W3C's processes for producing specifications appears compromised and that
we are entering an anti-competitive state on the Web. One that does not
favor people with disabilities.

Unfortunately, we will have to present this change on Canvas accessibility
at SXSW and CSUN. Where at one time we had hoped to provide positive work
on canvas accessibility, now due solely to the chairs response in this
matter, we do not.

This is a very sad situation.

> In any case, if for any reason these bugs aren't resolved to your
> satisfaction by December 31st 2011[1], you will have the opportunity to
> escalate the bugs and propose your own resolutions in the form of
> concrete Change Proposals.
> > I am leaving for vacation in an hour and will be unavailable for mostly
> > through the end of the year. I look forward to your reply.
> Unfortunately, I wasn't around to respond within the hour.  Hopefully
> you will see this when you return.
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> - Sam Ruby
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Jun/0315.html
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2011 11:18:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:56:03 UTC