- From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:16:02 +0000
- To: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AANLkTin5Y0a3dRPSJJEQ0RLeDM8xVH79tAW4XB59RdL9@mail.gmail.com>
apologies a clarification of one point i wrote: "While the commit then review may be a useful method for the development of new features" I meant to say: While the commit then review on an unversioned docuemnt may be a useful method for the development of new features it does not follow that it is a good method for the authoring practices that accompany features. While the brower vendors may control what is implemented , they do not and should not control the authoring conformance requirements associated with imlementations. regardes stevef On 24 January 2011 13:10, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: > I think authoring conformance requrements are not served well by the living > standard model, there is no certainty over the rules that authors should > follow. > also including things that are half-baked (hgroup springs to mind) in a > standard can potentially mislead developers, waste time thier time and > undermine the concept of web (authoring) standards. > > While the commit then review may be a useful method for the development of > new features, it does not follow that it is a good method for the authoring > practices that accompany features. > > regards > stevef > On 24 January 2011 12:59, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>wrote: > >> On 24/01/2011 11:39, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:21:39 +0100, Joshue O Connor >> > <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie> wrote: >> >> Yes, but from an a11y focus. The lack of vendor involvement in the spec >> >> development, and this latest move will make the resolution of issues >> >> such as <canvas> etc much harder. We shall see if this is the case in >> >> time, I guess. >> > >> > Vendors not being involved sounds like the real problem here. And >> > historically snapshot-based specifications have not helped with that. >> >> Exactly. I guess there is little we can do about it at this point. >> >> > Witness some of the accessibility features added in HTML4. You have to >> > design something that all parties are interested in supporting. (Just >> > stating some general observations here; not trying to say anything about >> > <canvas> as frankly I am not too familiar with the current state of >> > affairs.) >> >> Also agreed, in fact is it just as well if something isn't explicitly an >> "accessibility thing" just something that works for lots of diverse >> users. There is much in the spec that is very welcome, and will make the >> web more accessible, I'm just not convinced the current development is >> the best move. >> >> Anyway, we shall see. >> >> Cheers >> >> Josh >> >> > > > -- > with regards > > Steve Faulkner > Technical Director - TPG > > www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com<http://www.html5accessibility.com/>| > www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner > HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - > dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ > Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html > > > -- with regards Steve Faulkner Technical Director - TPG www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com<http://www.html5accessibility.com/>| www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives - dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/ Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 13:16:54 UTC