- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 18:20:06 -0500
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: 'HTML Accessibility Task Force' <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, 'Paul Cotton' <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, 'Maciej Stachowiak' <mjs@apple.com>, "'Smith, Michael\(tm\)'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Philippe Le Hegaret' <plh@w3.org>
I don't understand the purpose of these clarification requests. We stated that the issue can be reopened if one or more of these conditions are met. I have already said that I believe that the conditions have been met. What more clarification do you need? "What will make a compelling case?" The only possible answer to that is "a case that is stronger than the objections that may be raised in response to the proposal". I do *not* recommend that you spend conference call time requesting clarifications - Sam Ruby On 01/06/2011 05:48 PM, John Foliot wrote: > Per our conference call of January 6^th , I have been asked to write to > write this up. > > In the Chair’s Decision document regarding @longdesc, they stated: > > > “Revisiting this Issue > > This issue can be reopened if new information come up. Examples of > possible relevant new information include: > > * use cases that specifically require longdesc, > * evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that > growth is expected to continue, or > * widespread interoperable implementation.” > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/att-0112/issue-30-decision.html > > > It is apparent that both PF and numerous members of this Task Force wish > to see the @longdesc decision revisited. I personally have asked on > numerous occasions for clarification on these points, and specifically > the metrics and measurements that will apply when reconsideration is > undertaken by the Chairs. My questions are: > > 1)“use cases that specifically require longdesc” – how many use cases > are required? 1 or more? 5 or more? 20 or more? Laura Carlson has been > documenting numerous cases where @longdesc is being used today – do > these in-the-wild examples constitute use cases in the broader sense (in > that the author(s) have chosen to use @longdesc as they believe it to be > appropriate?) > > Clarification on how many use-cases will make a compelling case to the > chairs is again requested. > > 2)“evidence that correct usage is growing rapidly and that that growth > is expected to continue” – how is “rapidly” defined here? What is > considered “growth”? Increase of usage by authors? Emergence of author > support in authoring tools? Emergence of rendering support – such as > plug-ins or native support in CMSes? How will the ‘expectation’ of > continued growth be assessed? > > Clarification on how both “rapid” and “growth” are to be measured is > again requested, so that we can be sure to meet (or document) these > tests of measurement. > > 3)“widespread interoperable implementation” – How is “widespread” > measured? Interoperable implementations where? Since @longdesc is > written to the DOM in all browsers today as a DOM node, it surely is > widespread (?). Since users of AT that support @longdesc (the majority > of screen readers today) can thus use their AT tools with the browser of > their choice to ‘extract’ and interact with the @longdesc value already, > does this meet the criteria for “widespread interoperable > implementation”? If not, why not? And what, instead, do the Chairs > expect to see to meet this criteria? > > Clarification of what “widespread interoperable implementation” means to > the Chairs is again requested. > (I might suggest that if, as is the case with most W3C requirements, the > number is 2 independent implementations, then we have already met that > requirement, as more than two screen readers today expose @longdesc to > their users, and those AT tools can be used with at least two commercial > browsers in the marketplace. Do the Chairs concur or disagree?) > > At this time, I would like to request that the Accessibility Task Force > look at these questions. > > ·Do we collectively understand the requirements as given to us by the > Chairs? > > ·Do we believe collectively that more clarification and measurement > metrics are required so that we can succeed in meeting the Chairs > requirements? > > > It has been noted already that we will likely only get one more “kick at > the can” here, thus ensuring we have met all the requirements requested > of us fully is an important goal to meet: it would be unconscionable to > miss out again due to vaguely defined requirements not being met fully. > > If collectively we believe – as I currently do – that accurate > definitions are required, then I would like to ask the Task Force to > formally & collectively make a Request for Clarification to the Chairs. > If none is forth-coming then, as Janina noted on the call, we can > document this fact as part of any TF/PF Formal Objection down the road. > If however the Chairs do respond, then we will know **specifically** > what is required to Revisit this Issue, and we can work to ensure we > meet those requirements. > > I would like to request that we add this to next week’s Call Agenda for > further discussion (unless we resolve this via the list). > > Cheers! > > JF > > ============================ > > John Foliot > > Program Manager > > Stanford Online Accessibility Program > > http://soap.stanford.edu > > Stanford University > > Tel: 650-862-4603 > > --- > > Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media) > > http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page > > ============================ >
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 23:21:41 UTC