- From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:48:49 -0500
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Shelley Powers<shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Joshue O Connor wrote: >>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> > When you guys develop the wording, I'd suggest also having this as an >>> > explicit option: [...] >>> >>> That would be fine with me. >> >> The proposal, or the vote text? >> >> Do you think this would be ok?: >> >> What do you think HTML5 should say about making complex data tables >> more accessible? >> >> ( ) HTML5 should encourage authors to use the summary="" attribute >> that was introduced in HTML4. >> >> ( ) The text currently in the HTML5 spec is fine. >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#table-descriptions >> >> ( ) The text currently in the HTML5 spec is mostly fine, but should in >> addition make summary="" conforming for authors (without >> encouraging it over other options). >> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/tabular-data.html#table-descriptions >> >> ( ) Something else, described below. >> >> If you said "something else", please describe it here: [_____] >> >> I think if we have these options we should definitely also include three >> little 150-word essays that argue each case, so that people who aren't >> familiar with the issues can read up on them before voting. >> >> -- >> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL >> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. >> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >> >> > > Sorry, butting in, but this is not an effective voting test. > > By referencing what's existing in the document, you add weight to that > text, which creates a bias in how people interpret the options. > > You need to remove all references to what's in the existing > specification. In fact, everything should be removed from the draft, > until after the vote. To have a fair, and impartial vote. > > Shelley > PS Sorry if this came across as overly abrupt. I appreciate the effort you took to add the new text to the draft, Ian, but I think it would be better to treat all options as equal when going into the vote. Thus it would be better to add whatever text after the vote. Otherwise, issues of fairness will probably continue to raise its head, and we never fully resolve this item. Thanks Shelley
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 20:49:35 UTC