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

Maciej,

At 08:35 PM 8/12/2012 -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>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.

My understanding from discussion with Jeff is that his suggestion 
that the schedule be given higher priority was provided in the 
context of an assurance that the timeline was reasonable. From 
discussion with Philippe, this is likewise my understanding of your 
discussion with him. These were prior to availability of the HTML 
Co-Chairs' decision on Issue 204: ARIA-hidden [1]. The 204 decision 
has now been available and discussed for only four days. Multiple 
aspects of the decision are under dispute, and a formal objection has 
already been filed. The problems anticipated in the extension request 
below stand as previously described, and additional concerns have emerged.

The HTML Co-Chairs' decision attempts to assert a design change on 
another W3C Working Group's specification without direct consultation 
with that group, and in spite of on-survey comments that such a 
change would not be feasible; that it would not produce the behavior 
that the Co-Chairs appear to intend; and that it would cause harm to 
existing ARIA implementations. A second formal objection, that would 
be pursued via expedited appeal, is therefore under consideration on 
this aspect. Due to participant unavailability plus time needed to 
assess the approach, PFWG will not have time to fully consider their 
approach till next week. The outcome of an appeal would have direct 
bearing on the hearing of Issue 30 as the attempt to redefine 
ARIA-describedby speaks to the question of whether there might be a 
viable alternative to longdesc.

Some portions of on-list discussion over the past few days have been 
productive with regard to clarifications and exchange of information. 
One such exchange has clarified that of the "two implementations" 
mentioned in the Co-Chairs' decision (perhaps a typo intended as "two 
implementors"), one does not exist and is therefore unavailable to be 
tested by accessibility experts. From prior communication the other 
is understood to be a partial implementation, and several 
uncertainities remain regarding potential capabilities of that 
implementation approach. There is no way to know, apart from one of 
the Co-Chairs' own assertions, that once available this 
implementation could overcome possibly unremediable flaws such as the 
disappearing cursor problem which would affect sighted users -- and 
even if so, whether it could address all of the use cases for a 
longer description mechanism for people with a variety of disabilities.

A still-unresolved question recently raised is, should the 
implementation flaw regarding the disappearing cursor in ARIA-hidden 
be solvable, whether it would then actually limit which longer 
description use cases could be met by this approach by creating other 
accessibility problems. We are not seeking to convince you of this 
point in this email, but rather seeking the time with which to more 
clearly explain certain requirements in the Issue 30 change proposal 
vis-a-vis apparent misunderstandings and questions in the Issue 204 
decision and the subsequent onlist discussion; and at the same time 
to complete assessment for, and as needed preparation of, an 
expedited appeal of a formal objection on the 204 decision.

As you yourself note above, Issue 30 is part of a dependency chain. 
The HTML Co-Chairs have asserted for over half a year that there is a 
sequential dependency between Issue 204: ARIA-hidden and Issue 30: 
Longdesc. The framing of the question on 204 and now the decision on 
it, rather than facilitating resolution of Issue 30, has left intact 
several questions critical to the fair hearing of Issue 30. Four days 
would not be reasonable to address this dependency even when not in 
the middle of one of the busiest vacation periods of the year. Our 
request for time to address the outcome of the 204 decision in the 
Issue 30 change proposal stands.

- Judy

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0111.html

>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

> >
> > - 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

[3] HTML Co-Chairs' decision on Issue 204: ARIA-hidden


> >
> > 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 Saturday, 18 August 2012 05:10:35 UTC