W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: How to make complex data tables more accessible to screen-reader users

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:22:53 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <6A09877E-31E0-473D-A6E6-66BB67CE624C@apple.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>

On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I would personally find any of the first three options acceptable  
>> (with suitable adjustments for wording). However, I think it would  
>> be far better to have a conclusive decision on any of these options  
>> than to continue to leave the issue open.
>> After the huge volume of discussion on this issue, it seems very  
>> unlikely to me that we will achieve consensus. So I think the  
>> chairs should do one of the following soon: (a) outline a concrete  
>> process for building consensus; (b) hold a vote; or (c) outline  
>> another process for making a group decision notwithstanding the  
>> lack of consensus.
> My preference is to hold a vote on complete drafts.  My  
> understanding is  that Rob is working on one, but it clearly is not  
> in a state where a vote can be held on it.

I don't think voting on whole drafts is the best way to resolve  
individual issues. If we had editors who are unwilling to change their  
drafts and offer them only as a package deal, it might be, but that  
doesn't seem to be the case here.

Let's say Rob's draft makes many different changes (I believe that is  
his intent). If I prefer Rob's draft text on Issue A, but Ian's draft  
text on Issue B, then how can I express my position by voting on whole  
drafts? In particular, at least one of Ian or Rob, or some other  
volunteer, may be willing to change their draft in response to a  
Working Group decision on a particular issue. So by bundling a vote on  
all the different issues, we don't get the chance to decide these  
separately, when otherwise we might get a draft that better expresses  
the will of the Working Group than any proposed candidate draft.

Do we have group consensus that whole drafts are the only or primary  
granularity at which we will make decisions?

Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 01:23:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC