- From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 20:40:04 -0500
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Cc: "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "'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 why you are forwarding this to the Wg Chairs, etc. I thought we agreed we could take this up as an TF agendum, at your request. Also, I don't see an actual agenda topic here. Is it Whether to ask for clarification on certain terms? I'm afraid I'm confused by what you're doing here. Janina John Foliot writes: > Per our conference call of January 6th, 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 > > > > ============================ > > > -- Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Chair, Open Accessibility janina@a11y.org Linux Foundation http://a11y.org Chair, Protocols & Formats Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/wai/pf World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Saturday, 8 January 2011 01:40:53 UTC