- From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:30:58 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: > > > The same way that, since the beginning of this working group, the > working > group has ensured that _I_ can participate in this initiative -- by > having > minutes that transcribe the meeting. > > If the minutes aren't good enough, why weren't you complaining about > this > last week _before_ Anne offered to make audio alternatives available? Because you and I have had access to equally good or bad minutes each week. Anne wants to enhance their usefulness and quality by including an audio track to capture content that is currently not being captured in the scribed minutes (suggesting that the minutes alone are not complete enough). That's great, but while doing so, continue to ensure that *everyone* receives the additional benefit derived from this additional input. To improve things for you and I, but not for others (such as Vicki) is inequitable, unfair, and in contradiction of WCAG guidance for web content (Anne *is* talking of posting the audio on the web), and W3C policy for using 'media' as a means of capturing official business (per Dan C.). On a human level, it is also rude, and given how easy it is to remedy, I am at a loss as to why this is such a huge burden for this working group. Seeing as I personally offered to pay the first go-round to kick things off, you would think that in a healthy environment, someone would say, "Sounds great! Go for it!" I'm just sayin'... JF
Received on Saturday, 15 August 2009 22:31:39 UTC