Re: 48-Hour Consensus Call: InstateLongdesc CP Update

On 09/18/2012 10:21 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
>> I want to preface this reply with a comment that I deeply respect the
>> attention to detail that Laura puts to both her concrete proposals and on
>> capturing requirements.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> I will say that this particular reply doesn't live up to that high standard.
>
> I am sorry that you feel this way.

I'll simply note that in passing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

>> On 09/18/2012 08:47 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Rich,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger
>>> <schwer@us.ibm.com <mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Sorry, folks, I am on vacation but I wanted to weigh in briefly.
>>>
>>>      So, there are really only two options
>>>
>>> There is only one options as number two would be unacceptable as
>>> previously discussed.
>>
>>
>> Just as the HTML WG chairs agreed to reopen the previous decision based on
>> new information, I encourage you to continue to be open to discussion.
>
> Well, the clock is ticking and we need to have the HTML WG survey soon.

I will repeat that the option of a survey is currently out of the HTML 
WG chairs hands at the moment[1], though we are actively working to 
resolve that.

> With the exception of Janina spotting two typos and Chaals offering
> some thoughts for improvement for the overlay text, this thread has
> rehashed the same discussion that has taken place since 2007. No new
> information has been offered. What do you consider new information,
> Sam?

I think the crucial question is the one that John Foliot posed[2]: does 
the Change Proposal "mandate something that browsers will continue ignore"?

I think that the path forward is to, as John Foliot stated, "actively 
engage them in crafting the solution".

Richard mentioned three individuals, one of which is actively 
participating here.  Given that widespread adoption is something that we 
all should be seeking, I would be interested in what they have to say. 
One of which has posted here previously[3] on this very subject.

Telling people that their input is "unacceptable as previously
discussed." is most decidedly NOT the best way to actively engage others 
in crafting a solution, and is not the way this Task Force should be 
operating.

> Thanks.
>
> Best Regards,
> Laura

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Sep/0173.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0405.html

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Mar/0405.html

Received on Tuesday, 18 September 2012 15:33:20 UTC