Re: longdesc Issue 30 deserves to be resolved

Hi Maciej,

> I understand your concerns.

Really? Some of my concerns:

* The longer longdesc is obsolete, the more people will not use it or
stop using it. It discourages and deters uptake. Your delay biases the
issue.

* Your delay has also allowed Jonas to work with Ian to incorporate
his hidden proposal into the editor's draft. Your delay biases the
issue.

* You are the person drafting the review of my proposal. In the past
you have has mocked longdesc and people with disabilities [1]. Your
involvement biases the issue. Will you recuse yourself from Chair
deliberations on this issue?

Maciej, do you indeed understand these 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 reviewed Jonas Sicking's proposal on December 20, 2011,
over one month ago. [2]
* The Chairs reviewed Matthew Turvey's proposal August 23, 2011, five
whole months ago. [3]
* My proposal was written a year ago and has been ready for eight
months since the TF endorsed it. The Chairs still haven't reviewed it.

Do you indeed understand that to give some people extra time to work
on the Chairs' advice is not equitable treatment?

> The Chairs are making  ISSUE-30 a top priority.

I hope so. I really hope so because I am beginning to wonder if delay
is a tactic to keep longdesc out of the spec. The longer it is out the
less chance of getting it back in. I fear we could be entering stage 4
in Hixie's Bible [4]  ... "Something could have been done, but it is
too late."

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] <othermaciej>  "add longdesc... for the children! the poor
disabled children!"
http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20071224#l-16
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0181.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Aug/0367.html
[4] http://ian.hixie.ch/bible/handling-people


On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> 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
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 13:08:33 UTC