RE: [DRAFT] Heartbeat poll

Ian Hickson wrote:
> Actually, it _is_ my place to make proposals that improve on the status
> quo. 

Then make them to the WAI via the appropriate channels!  Imposing your
point of view within a Draft Document is not the appropriate place to
disagree.  The HTML WG is *not* the appropriate place to re-write official
W3C Web Accessibility guidance, and why you believe this to be true is
beyond me.

> I'm having trouble understanding what you are suggesting here. It
> appears
> you are asking for the following:
>  * Move summary="" from "obsolete but conforming" to "fully
> conforming".

...Until such time as an 'official' resolution is determined through the
ongoing W3C process, which is currently tracked at: 

>  * Remove all advice regarding how tables should be made accessible.

You have rephrased my request. Specifically, remove the text that tells
authors not to use @summary, again until such time as this issue is
properly resolved through appropriate W3C process. This text does *NOT*
tell authors how to make tables more accessible, it imposes your opinion
under the guise of 'specification'.

>  * Add a reference to the WCAG 2.0 "Techniques" note for HTML 4.x and
>    XHTML 1.x.

If you feel that guidance is required inside of the HTML 5 specification,
then yes - this is the current W3C sanctioned guidance, rightly or
wrongly.  If you have concerns or new information that causes this
guidance to be questioned, then I urge you to bring this forward to the
W3C and specifically the WAI. There is a process to be followed: this is
not the Wild West where the man with the gun (or here editor badge) gets
to re-write the rules.

If you feel that you are not being heard or responded to at WAI, then I
personally will ask the WAI Domain Lead, Judy Brewer (copied on the email)
to investigate why there is a delay.

> I haven't made these changes. I consider disagreement with WCAG 2.0 to
> be acceptable; 

And as a personal opinion, you are certainly entitled to that view.  As an
official W3C document, I respectfully disagree and I will be asking other
senior W3C officials if it is indeed the policy of the W3C to have 2
official documents directly contradict each other.

> accessibility guidelines evolve over time, and that's fine.
> It's ok if a working draft of a new version of HTML contradicts some of
> the advice that was based on the previous version of HTML, if the
> contradiction is based on trying to improve accessibility based on data
> collected about how the aforementioned guidance is actually working.

According to whom, besides Ian Hickson?

> In conclusion, I cannot in good faith make the changes you are
> requesting
> at this time. If there were solid reasoning or research to back up
> these
> requests, then I would naturally reconsider.

I believe that the reasoning of due process and W3C protocol is both solid
and correct.  We are not talking about the final draft, but rather a
working draft, and I am simply asking that judgment of @summary, which is
still an open issue, not be pre-ordained at this time.

Based upon your statement however, I will be submitting an alternative
draft specification Monday for consideration as the next heart-beat HTML 5
Draft Specification.  I will further ask the chairs to put this to a vote
within the HTML Working Group.  I am sorry that it has come to this, but I
cannot in good faith stand by and watch one man's opinion re-write W3C

Sam and Mike, I will be in direct contact with you to deliver the promised
alternative Draft.


Received on Sunday, 2 August 2009 05:31:35 UTC