- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:51:56 -0700
- To: cerbera@projectcerbera.com
- Cc: mjs@apple.com, foliot@wats.ca, public-html@w3.org
(C) is well-articulated -- thank you. Ben 'Cerbera' Millard writes: > > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > [Position A]: Accessibility is important. Therefore we should have a lot > > of HTML features that are there specifically to aid accessibility for > > some classes of users. Authors should be required to add as much > > accessibility stuff as possible to their markup. > > > > [Position B]: Many authors won't think that much about accessibility. So > > the best accessibility enhancements are those that work on top of > > features that also have some benefit in mainstream browsers with no added > > AT. In the course of making the right markup for general use, > > accessibility comes along for the ride, and that's basically all we need. > > There is a third point of view, albeit quite small: > > [Position C]: Retain accessibility-specific features which > are in use. Add native accessibility to everything. Allow > both to be mixed where useful. > > This is the position I tend towards. It does what both Position A and > Position B are most interested in. I predict this is what HTMLWG will > eventually settle on for the spec, even though it requires HTMLWG to do lots > of work. > > John Foliot wrote: > > There has been sufficient response from other parties > > surrounding this issue that if you do not understand > > by now why collectively the accessibility advocates > > are upset, then it points to an even bigger > > problem. Please tell me that this is not the case. > > I am not upset about how WHATWG handle accessibility issues. > > They are open issues for us to contribute research and experience towards. > We are all invited to shape the spec as it goes through W3C Process over the > next several years. I see this as a tremendous opportunity! > > When I first found that some accessibility-specific attributes were absent, > sure I was upset. But then I took the time to interact with WHATWG to > understand where they were coming from. Although they have some ideas about > it, turns out they consider accessibility stuff an open issue. So I wasn't > upset any more. :-) > > But if I hadn't made the effort to see things from their perspective I would > have gotten the wrong idea. I would be making exactly the complaints > saturating public-html from the other accessibility folks. These complaints > are certainly well intentioned. But they are the result of misunderstanding > the stage HTML5 is at and the process it will go through, imho. > > -- > Ben 'Cerbera' Millard > Collections of Interesting Tables > <http://sitesurgeon.co.uk/!dev/tables/> > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 23:53:26 UTC