Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): Transition the Image Description specification to Proposed Recommendation (PR) status

As a matter of formal record…

On Sep 4, 2014, at 19:42 , Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Three CfC Questions
> 
> Please respond on each of the following three propositions.
> 
> PROPOSITION #1: The HTML-A11Y Task Force believes that the archived
> record of deliberation on the topics raised in the Formal Objection
> filed by Apple Computer on this specification is sufficient to support
> progressing it toward Recommendation status.  We request that W3C
> management move forward toward an expedited resolution of that
> objection. The Formal Objection can be found at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2014Aug/0028.html

I do not support this consensus, and indeed I note that the process does not allow for declaration of consensus in the presence of an unresolved formal objection. In case there is any doubt, the formal objection (which was to the CR transition decision) should be considered as applying to advancing the document along the Rec. track in its current form, and hence also applies to this proposed PR transition.

> 
> PROPOSITION #2: The Task Force thanks Igalia for its implementation
> report and its comments on the CR specification and supports the
> disposition of those comments as proposed at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Sep/0000.html
> with the additional modification (also accepted by Igalia) at:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Sep/0011.html.

I do not support this consensus. In particular, I note that the task force has failed to answer at least one of the points raised.  They requested guidance for authors:

> > Proposed Additions to "3.0.2 Authors"
> > 
> > *  Authors MUST NOT rely solely on longdesc as the means to provide
> >    access to information which is essential for the user.

and the response does not discuss author guidance, but users:

> DISPOSITION: Not accepted
> 
> Whether a longdesc is essential or nonessential will depend on
> circumstance. It will vary among users, and will even vary for the same
> user given different circumstances.
> 
> The point of the longdesc feature is to make it easy for the user to
> access that information, or to readily skip past it as their needs of the moment
> may dictate.


> PROPOSITION 3: The HTML-A11Y Task Force recommends and requests that the
> HTML and PF Working Groups transition the HTML 5 Image Description
> Extension specification to Proposed Recommendation (PR status using the
> draft document at:
> http://www.w3.org/2014/09/04-PR-html-longdesc/
> 
> Our Implementation Report for this specification showing that it meets
> W3C recommendation requirements is available at:
> http://w3c.github.io/test-results/html-longdesc/cr-report.html

I do not support this consensus, for the reasons outlined in the formal objection.


David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2014 18:59:34 UTC