- From: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:16:42 -0500
- To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
- Cc: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Steve Holbrook <shh@us.ibm.com>
- Message-ID: <OF5DF06533.1B7BDDA8-ON86257A77.0067BEF6-86257A77.0069EE3C@us.ibm.com>
I agree that tremendous progress has been made the changes toward removing changes that impact existing implementations of aria-descrribedby. Most importantly, I am encouraged by the more open dialog that I hope will avoid such issues from occurring in the future. For these reasons I support withdrawal of the two halves of the PF Formal Objection. I encourage that ARIA remain integrated in the HTML5 specification, just as we are working to do with SVG, and I believe the current process with this type of improved collaboration and communication across companies and working groups should enable that to happen. Best Regards, Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger From: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> To: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>, Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, W3C WAI Protocols & Formats <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> Date: 09/10/2012 03:34 PM Subject: Re: 48-hour Consensus Call - Expedited Formal Objection on HTML Issue-204 Decision I'd also like to go on the record against the Formal Objection, as I was away on vacation at the time of the 48-hour consensus call, and I believe Cynthia may have been as well. Despite some lack of clarity in the particular language, I believe the spirit of the change is sound, and we are currently trying to resolve the technical complaints resulting from the wording. On Sep 10, 2012, at 11:59 AM, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> wrote: > I realize that it has been more than 48 hours, but wanted to go on record against this formal objection. > > The sentence cited in the FO: > > "User Agents are encouraged to expose the full semantics of hidden elements to Assistive Technology when such elements are referenced from WAI-ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby." > > This sentence is non-normative and aspirational. It encourages user agents to build new features that would allow in-page, hidden long descriptions. As non-normative text, it does not define anything, and cannot redefine aria. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net] > Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 10:26 AM > To: W3C WAI Protocols & Formats > Cc: Judy Brewer > Subject: 48-hour Consensus Call - Expedited Formal Objection on HTML Issue-204 Decision > > Colleagues: > > On 22 August next the WAI Protocols & Formats WG teleconference meeting will consider consensus support to file a formal objection on the HTML-WG's Issue-204 decision with a request for expedited handling. > > As usual, if there is objection in the working group to such a consensus position, please respond by replying to this message no later than noon, Boston Time, on Wednesday, 15 August. > > Also, if there are suggestions for edits to this draft objection, please reply here to this message with your suggestions. > > <Begin Objection Draft> > > Last week the HTML Working Group formally decided to specify certain behavior relating to ARIA in the HTML 5 specification. Their decision is documented at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Aug/0111.html > > Noting that the HTML-WG decision "redefines how aria specification is defined," > The PF ArIA Task Force reached the following resolution at its regular weekly teleconference on 20 August as documented at: > > https://www.w3.org/2012/08/20-pf-minutes.html > > *RESOLUTION: ARIA TF supports a formal objection by PF to HTML WG issues > 204 decision.* > > The HTML-WG decision determined to include the following two statements in Sec. 7.1 of the HTML 5 specification: > > 1.) "It would be fine, however, to use the ARIA aria-describedby attribute > to refer to descriptions that are themselves hidden." > > 2.) "User Agents are encouraged to expose the full semantics of hidden="" > elements to Assistive Technology when such elements are referenced from WAI-ARIA attributes such as aria-describedby=""." > > The specifics of this HTML-WG decision, including the ARIA behavior here noted, can be found at: > > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden#Details > > The HTML-WG and its chairs have been informed that the PF-WG strongly opposes this specification on several occasions, including most recently on its Issue-204 WBS, where PF's ARIA Task Force Chair provided extensive technical objections to this specification, and PF's Chair noted that ""If the HTML-WG wishes to negotiate additional ARIA behavior for its HTML 5 specifications, it should propose the particulars to the PF-WG." > > https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-204-objection-poll/results > > PF notes that the HTML-WG has successfully worked with PF in the past to achieve appropriate ARIA related specifications in HTML 5, most recently in HTML's Issue-199: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Jul/0122.html > > Yet, in this instance, our objections were completely discounted in the HTML decision which states: > > "... there were a number of objections that apply to both proposals, and in at least one case are made by the same individual against both proposals. If the people who felt this way had presented a third proposal, then these arguments would have been considered." > > The "people" referred to in this statement are the ARIA Task Force Chair and the PF-WG Chair. In any case, PF cannot accept a process which cedes decisions on ARIA behavior to the HTML-WG, which is what creating the suggested "third proposal" would have achieved. We note that ARIA is a chartered deliverable of the PF-WG, and we strongly insist that other Working Group specifications relating to ARIA must be mutually agreed, and not determined by the HTML-WG alone out of a menu of competing proposals. > > The PF-WG therefore requests expedited handling of this formal objection to the above cited HTML-WG decision. We request that: > > 1.) HTML-WG be directed to remove the > above cited sentences immediately. > > 2.) HTML-WG be directed to work with PF-WG to jointly agree on appropriate > language for Sec. 7.1 of the HTML 5 specification, should the HTML-WG continue to desire language change in that section that would refer to ARIA behavior. > > PF-WG notes again that ARIA is a PF-WG chartered deliverable, and strongly protests another working group's unilateral attempt to define ARIA behavior. Because we believe HTML-WG intends to base additional decisions on its Issue-204 decision, we respectfully request our objection recieve immediate expedited handling so that any damage may be kept minimal. > > Janina Sajka, PF-WG Chair > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.443.300.2200 > sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net > Email: janina@rednote.net > > The Linux Foundation > Chair, Open Accessibility: http://a11y.org > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) > Chair, Protocols & Formats http://www.w3.org/wai/pf > Indie UI http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/ > > > >
Attachments
- image/gif attachment: graycol.gif
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 19:18:10 UTC