Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

hi ben,

"I will wait and see if the proposal is clarified so that I can least
tell what textual changes would be made to documents that are HTML WG
deliverables."

As I said in another recent email to sam et al.

I am going to hold off making any changes to the CP as it is being
edited by me on behaolf of the a11y taskforce and there needs to be
further discussion by the taskforce on how to proceed.

thank you for your input on the CP it has provided valuable perspectives.


regards
stevef

On 26 February 2012 05:12, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> none of the statements you have cited , from my reading, imply that
>> new normative requirements are to be minted
>
> Me: "there *may* be new normative requirements" (my emphasis).
>
> You: "new normatives requirements *are* to be minted" (my emphasis).
>
> But anyway, the CP says "The majority of normative authoring
> requirements for alternative text currently contained within the HTML5
> specification are not HTML5-specific, but are also useful and relevant
> for authoring content in other specifications besides HTML5" and then
> seems to argue we should delete them from the HTML5 spec. Maybe it
> means that these are useful guidance but bad normative requirements,
> and so shouldn't be required for conformance anywhere. Maybe it means
> these are good normative requirements but already normative in WCAG2
> and don't need to be required for HTML5 conformance. Mysteries abound.
>
>> and if they were it would
>> require an update to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
>> recomendation.
>
> I guess you mean a new version of WCAG, since as a published
> specification WCAG 2.0 is subject to errata not the addition of new
> normative requirements.
>
>> Any suggestions you have on how to modify the CP text
>> to make that clearer would be appreciated.
>
> People in this thread keep asking me to provide clearer text for a
> proposal I don't understand, making arguments about which I've
> expressed repeated scepticism [1] [2], and that does not seem to
> specify the changes its proponents seem to want and even seems to
> argue against them [3]. It would be healthier if the WG just required
> CPs to include textual patches, as this would save a lot of discussion
> about intentions [4].
>
> Given that the general idea of the CP is to migrate responsibility for
> writing technical specifications from one group of people to another
> group of people to avoid confusion among readers of specs and users of
> conformance checkers, the failure of this particular CP to detail its
> changes unambiguously in a way that leaves specifications in a
> consistent state is a depressing example of a medium undermining its
> own message.
>
> I will wait and see if the proposal is clarified so that I can least
> tell what textual changes would be made to documents that are HTML WG
> deliverables.
>
> If not, I'll guess I'll need to ask the Chairs what textual changes
> they would require to HTML WG deliverables if they accepted the
> proposal and decide how to proceed on the basis of their
> interpretation.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Jul/0098.html
>
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2010Nov/0101.html
>
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Feb/0342.html
>
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Apr/0727.html
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | 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 Sunday, 26 February 2012 17:19:42 UTC