Re: ISSUE-30: longdesc "InstateLongdesc" - outlook

The Chairs discussed this request for additional extension with the W3C Team. We pointed out that there was a tradeoff between potentially allowing more time to improve the InstateLongdesc proposal and the timeline for our next Last Call, as ISSUE-30 is part of a dependency chain that is currently our long pole for scheduling. W3C Management suggested that we should give the schedule higher priority. None of the items identified below seem likely to be affected by the result of ISSUE-204. And none of them seem likely to affect the outcome of ISSUE-30 as currently described. We agree with the Team's assessment and therefore stand by the August 17th deadline for updates.

Note: if anyone were to identify a critical but fixable defect in the InstateLongdesc proposal, or an essential flaw, or a point that actually depends on the outcome of ISSUE-204, we would consider granting further extensions to address such an issue. But the items below do not seem specific enough.

Regards,
Maciej

On Aug 8, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> wrote:

> Sam,
> 
> Following up on the outlook for "InstateLongdesc," subsequent to the pending decision on Issue 204:
> 
> As Janina had mentioned elsewhere in this thread,
> 
>>> The HTML-A11Y Task Force Text Subteam will consider whether to update
>>> its position at its teleconference Tuesday. I expect that there will be
>>> a desire to do so regardless of which Issue 204 is adopted and that this
>>> will require several weeks. I'll provide an update following the call
>>> Tuesday.
> 
> ...the Text Subteam discussed the question of the Issue-30 outlook. This was further reported and discussed in the accessibility Task Force meeting [1] and the HTML WG meeting [2]. As explained in those discussions, we are requesting additional time beyond the August 17th proposed by the HTML Co-Chairs because:
> - not yet having seen a decision on Issue 204, but knowing that there have been different perspectives on the interrelatedness of Issue 204 and Issue 30, we anticipate potentially needing to reclarify issues with regard to Issue 204 and Issue 30 relatedness in the Task Force-supported Issue 30 change proposal, and would need time to do so;
> - In a review of recent WG discussions around mechanisms for longer descriptions for web users with disabilities, we note the need to provide an introduction clarifying requirements with regard to web users with disabilities and to make some evidence more accessible through an updated summary;
> - Not knowing in advance when Issue 30 would be re-surveyed, it happens now to have landed on top of several different weeks of previously scheduled vacation by several people directly involved in the Task Force-supported change proposal. While we plan to work on this some during that time regardless, it will slow the review cycles by the Text Subteam and Task Force somewhat, for which we also need time.
> 
> Given the dependency on an unknown date (decision availability on Issue 204), and the overlap with scheduled vacations, we request a date of [Issue 204 decision availability] + 3 weeks, with the understanding that if we can have it ready earlier we will do so.
> 
> - Judy
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-html-a11y-minutes.html#item03
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/02-html-wg-minutes.html#item0
> 
> At 01:26 PM 7/27/2012 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> At this point issue 204 has gone to survey, seeking objections on two proposals.
>> 
>>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
>>  http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v4
>> 
>> In order to help the chairs plan our next steps, I would appreciate some indication as to whether or not people will be requesting an opportunity to update their proposals based on the decision, and if so, an estimate as to how long that would take.
>> 
>> So regarding the "InstateLongdesc" proposal[1]...
>> 
>> 1) Should the "AllowAriaReferHidden" proposal be selected, would the InstateLongdesc proposal need to be updated, and if so, how long do you estimate that it would take?
>> 
>> 2) Should the "Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v4" proposal be selected, would the InstateLongdesc proposal need to be updated, and if so, how long do you estimate that it would take?
>> 
>> I want to emphasize that this query is solely for planning purposes and will not affect the outcome of issue 204.
>> 
>> The survey on issue 204 closes on Friday August 3rd.  A response by that time would be greatly appreciated.
>> 
>> - Sam Ruby
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:        ISSUE-204: aria-hidden - Straw Poll for Objections
>> Resent-Date:    Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:19:07 +0000
>> Resent-From:    public-html@w3.org
>> Date:   Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:18:04 +0000
>> From:   Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
>> To:     public-html@w3.org <public-html@w3.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ISSUE-204: aria-hidden - Straw Poll for Objections
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/204
>> 
>> The HTML WG has not reached consensus on how to exempt ARIA attributes
>> from the rule that prohibits reference to hidden elements.
>> 
>> The poll is available here and it will run through Fri Aug 3:
>> 
>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-204-objection-poll/
>> 
>> Please read the introductory text before entering your response.
>> 
>> In particular, keep in mind that you don't *have* to reply. You only
>> need to do so if you feel your objection to one of the options is truly
>> strong, and has not been adequately addressed by a clearly marked
>> objection contained within a Change Proposal or by someone else's
>> objection. The Chairs will be looking at strength of objections, and
>> will not be counting votes.
>> 
>> /paulc
>> 
>> HTML WG co-chair
>> 
>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>> 
>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>> 
>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 03:35:42 UTC