[Bug 13432] Editorial changes to The Video element (1 of 5)

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13432

--- Comment #15 from John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> 2011-09-28 18:42:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> 
> Are these the only additional communities that should be mentioned?  What
> about, as Hixie mentioned, those with discalculia viewing videos with simple
> mathematics,

Here Tab, let me find you a razor blade so that you can slice out an even
thinner edge-case.  

But since you asked, specific to Discalculia, this is a content issue, and not
a "presentation" or video issue: such users will have problems around
mathematics whether presented as video, Canvas, SVG, MathMl, HTML or .txt - so
let's not play games.


> or those with seizures viewing videos that may flash or switch often,
> or those with dislexia viewing text-heavy videos (for which captions may
> not help), or those with any number of other relevant disabilities that can
> potentially be accounted for and addressed?

Please stop turning this into an "angels on the head of a pin" discussion.
While baiting John may seem like fun sport, it serves no-one usefully. 

At the heart of this bug is whether or not Ian is prepared to take and
implement an editorial change based upon feedback from community subject matter
experts. Everything else is simply redirection, obfuscation and hand-waving.


> 
> As both Silvia and Hixie have asked, what is the criteria for deciding which to
> include? 

The simple answer here is, when in doubt, ask. When corrected, learn. 

Understanding and respecting community norms, expectations, language and
protocols is an anthropological exercise that requires you immerse yourself
into that community to observe, listen and learn. This holds true whether that
community is an aboriginal tribe from the South American rain-forest, or a
community of people with a shared disability. The folks at NCAM (who provided
this feedback) have put in the time: they have listened to and worked with
numerous disability groups since the early 1990's*, as they have both pioneered
and professionally worked toward making media accessible to those communities. 

For more than 20 years NCAM have consulted with, and worked with, groups and
organizations such as the National Association of the Deaf, the National
Federation of the Blind, the American Council of the Blind, the American
Foundation for the Blind, the US Federal Access Board, the Federal
Communications Commission, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, the
Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, the Consumer Electronics
Association, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Adobe, Apple, CDC, Yahoo! and
Verizon.

Are you suggesting that individually Hixie, Silvia or yourself would know
better than them? Or can you accept the axiom: when corrected, learn. 

(* http://ncam.wgbh.org/about/background)


> If there is none besides "I know it when I see it", are you willing
> to review all such mentions of disabled groups and ensure that they're
> including all the groups you deem necessary?

"I" won't do anything unilaterally - however the various members of the
Accessibility Task Force are all reviewing the HTML5 specification to ensure
that it meets the needs of the many communities of disabled users on the web.
Collectively we are specifically looking at technology (for example: Hit
Testing in Canvas), guidelines (example: Alt Text Guidance), and appropriate
language usage (as in this bug). Unlike the ego-driven "I" that is pushing back
on this editorial change, the recommended change came from a community of
people with a vested interest in this particular issue - of accommodating user
groups consuming video: not Canvas, not SVG, not math videos or disco-light
flashing videos, nor any other specific edge case, but in general, and with
regard to "video" - period.

> 
> Finally, recall that there is always a balance between detail and terseness. 
> Less text is better, because it's easier to read and understand.  More text is
> better, because it provides more detail.  Are you certain that these additional
> details are necessary and counterbalance the loss of clarity and
> ease-of-reading caused by the additional text?

I will point to comment #4 (from you) where you posed the question:

   "It's just s/blind/blind or visually impaired/ and s/deaf/deaf or hard of
hearing/, right?"

...to which I replied affirmatively.

I will allow you the opportunity to explain specifically how these 2 minor
edits add confusion, diminish ease-of-reading or introduce loss of clarity. 


>  Might it be better to just have
> token references that illustrate the issues, as exist currently, and have a
> separate, fuller guide that goes into the details of accommodating many more
> groups?

Might it not be better to have the Editor get down off his horse and accept
that this one sentence could be improved by adding the 2 minor edits suggested?
 That in the grand scheme of things this minor editorial change has already
taken up way too much time, time that would be better spent working on real
problems?  That even he might not always get it 100% right? Commit the change
and let's move on already, or is there a real TECHNICAL reason for not doing
so?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 28 September 2011 18:42:35 UTC