Re: Comments on IRC log

Thanks for your comments James. I found them really useful.

Maybe there is need for sub groups within the WG to look at various
issues (starting with the problem) and work from there. The groups could
take various issues that don't have to just be accessibility related,
get their heads together and come up with a focused solution to suggest
to the group.  This would lead the process in an incremental manner
where ideas are thought out commented on and then abandoned or
progressed as needed.

> Let's take the example of the headers attribute, since that is an
example that you yourself have used later.

I take your point that it is a solution, and in order for an objective
progression to be made the problem needs to be clearly examined.
However, as in a previous conversion I had with Gregory I am really
against the removal of id/headers or other useful accessibility
attributes/elements as I feel it will leave a lot of users in the lurch
who may be forced to upgrade their expensive assistive technology in
order to support your (our?) new standard. So while I appreciate the
point you are making I have to reiterate how much of what will go on in
terms of the WG output can potentially negatively impact on people with
disabilities who are often on limited budgets.

This support may however not be long term but in the short term (like
the next 10 years) they should be supported until outstanding issues in
the spec are resolved that improve the situation for users and authors.

> I'm sure people who know more about this issue can fill in this sort
of assessment better than I can and add relevant research about things
like how often headers is used in a nonsensical way,

But how much of the code in the wild is used like that? Tons. But it
doesn't mean that support for bad use edge cases is enough reason to
remove them from the specifications. That is not a solid enough reason IMO.

>> People try their best to answer related threads and contribute.
> Answering threads may not be the best way to contribute.

Maybe not -  but following threads does also have its uses.

> On the contrary, I would suggest that the discussion of smell-o-vision
is an example of a case where the sensory experience transcends the
ability of most authors to replicate the content in an alternative medium.

Within the context of how the subject was broached I just don't buy that
at all. It seemed to be a completely facetious remark.



Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 08:20:08 UTC