Re: longdesc Issue 30 deserves to be resolved

Hi Laura,

I understand your concerns. At this point, the hold-up on ISSUE-30 is my fault, as I've not completed the first draft of your proposal yet. The Chairs are making ISSUE-30 a top priority. There will be an update on the timeline for this issue by Monday, January 30th.

Regards,
Maciej


On Jan 19, 2012, at 12:17 PM, Laura Carlson wrote:

> Hi Paul and all,
> 
>> From today's Accessibility Task Force Minutes [1]:
> 
>> JB: Thank you also to Paul for the update on the longdesc issue.
>> 
>> PC: Judy is referring to a thread open on the chair's list.
>> ... If the TF has a preferred order that issues are processed in,
>> information on how or why an issue should be prioritised would be
>> helpful.
> 
> Is there anything that I should know about the longdesc thread on the
> chair's list?
> 
> I drafted the longdesc Issue 30 Change Proposal almost one year ago [2].
> 
> Last May several people objected in the HTML Working Group Last Call
> survey that longdesc Issue 30 was not resolved prior to Last Call and
> that longdesc was not in the spec.
> 
> Because of these objections on May 25, 2011, in the "Responses to Last
> Call survey objections" the Chairs promised to expedite the processing
> of Issue 30 issue during Last Call [3]. This has not happened.
> 
> You had previously mentioned that the Chairs had estimated that they
> would be finished reviewing proposals on December 11, 2011. [4] On
> December 15 Maciej said he hoped the review of my change proposal
> (which has been stabilized and ready since last May when the task
> force endorsed it) would be out before the holiday break. [5]
> 
> I asked at the HTML Working Group Meeting today, what is the Chairs'
> plan to move on ISSUE-30 longdesc? Is there a timeline?  [6] Sam said
> that the Chairs are still drafting a review of my Change Proposal and
> couldn't say when that will be ready.
> 
> So Paul, my response to your question regarding preferred order to
> process issues is to please, please, expedite Issue 30 as promised.
> Please move this important issue forward. It deserves due process. It
> deserves to be resolved. It is an unnecessary atrocity on authors and
> users with disabilities for longdesc not to be included in HTML5.
> 
> Please, no more delays, please complete your review of my proposal,
> let's have the survey, and get longdesc back in the language.
> 
> Thank you very much for your consideration.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Laura
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-html-a11y-minutes.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/InstateLongdesc
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011May/0347.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2011Nov/0227.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/12/15-html-wg-minutes.html#item11
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2012/01/19-html-wg-minutes.html#item09
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>

Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 21:53:13 UTC