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: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:54:08 -0400
Message-ID: <4A515940.2080900@intertwingly.net>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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?

By producing such a draft, or by convincing somebody to do so.

> 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?

At the moment, this is an entirely hypothetical question in that nobody 
other than Ian has stepped forward and produced such a draft.  If we end 
up with multiple drafts, then we will collectively decide how to break 
the issues down and decide how to proceed.

I have also said that I would honor a request for a vote on a specific 
issue, if that is what that's the consensus of the group on how to 
proceed.  In fact, had you continued reading, that's what the very next 
paragraph stated:

>> Failing that, if there is consensus that a vote should be held and a
>> consensus on what that vote should be, a vote will be held. The first
>> step is to decide what exactly we are voting on and to provide a
>> summary of the various positions. Joshue O Connor is working on doing
>> exactly that.

At the present time, we only have one draft with one set of text which 
describes how the summary attribute should be handled.  At the present 
time we do not even have draft text on what a vote should be held on 
that enjoys consensus even among the set of people who disagree with the 
position that Ian has taken.  I fully expect this state to change, but 
until it does, the default action will be to proceed with Ian's text.

I would prefer that we hold off on further meta-process discussions on 
public-html.  Feel free to continue this discussion on www-archive.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 01:54:57 UTC

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