Re: Call for consensus - longdesc to CR

James Craig writes:
> > Furthermore, it is arguable, and I do assert that the DescribedAt
> > addition to ARIA-1.1 did indeed have consensus at the time it was
> > introduced. Need I remind everyone that consensus is NOT unanimity
> > according to published W3C process? The definition we are called to work
> > with is set forth at:
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus
> 
> By that definition, it was consensus only because my very vocal dissent did not not take the form of a Formal Objection. 
> 
Correct. You were the only voice opposed. It had nothing to do with
objections, formal or informal.

Janina

> To my knowledge, Formal Objections are only commonly filed against status-track documents once they reach a greater level of maturity than first or second public working draft. It would be burdensome to require working group members to immediately file FOs on every edit they disagreed with. 
> 
> I do not know if Alex or Dominic would file a formal objection to @aria-describedat, but I will almost certainly do it if no one else does.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> > Janina
> > 
> > 
> > Michael(tm) Smith writes:
> >> James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, 2014-07-25 19:21 -0700:
> >> 
> >>> As the current editor of the ARIA spec, I added @aria-describedat to the
> >>> ARIA 1.1 working draft because it gathered majority vote in the working
> >>> group, despite my objections and lack of group consensus.
> >>> @aria-describedat has all the same problems as @longdesc, but also breaks
> >>> an established and generally accepted ARIA pattern of not modifying the
> >>> mainstream UI of the host language. Accessibility-conscious user agent
> >>> developers from Mozilla and Google raised similar objections to
> >>> @aria-describedat.
> >> 
> >> There's something pretty odd about a decision-making process that results
> >> in an intended-for-accessibility feature getting added to a spec over the
> >> objections of the spec's own editor and over the objections of
> >> accessibility-conscious reps/developers from Apple, Mozilla, and Google.
> >> 
> >> Some might say it's a sign of that decision-making process being pretty
> >> seriously broken and in need of being replaced.
> >> 
> >>  --Mike
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 
> > Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
> > 			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
> > 		Email:	janina@rednote.net
> > 
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	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/
> > 

-- 

Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200
			sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net
		Email:	janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	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/

Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 20:05:50 UTC