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

Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

From: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:32:03 -0500
Message-ID: <643cc0270907260632kfbf50cbw5ca9eb8232106da8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, William Loughborough <wloughborough@gmail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 6:36 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me enumerate a few possible ways forward. [...]
>>>
>>> Option #5 is to accept what currently is in Ian's draft.
>>
>> Option #6 is for people to actually respond to my requests for
>> explanations of the various proposals that people have made, so that I can
>> actually understand people's positions. As has been demonstrated multiple
>> times even with the summary="" attribute, when people make reasoned
>> arguments and demonstrate why their proposals are a good idea, I change the
>> spec to follow them.
>
> +1
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>

Sam, which is it to be?

Draft the change and incorporate into the HTML 5 specification? Or
spend time repeating the same discussions, over and over again? Ian is
fully aware of the issues, reasons, and so on. If he isn't I suggest
he spend time searching on @summary in these lists.

This is the rubber meets the road time. We have an option to meet all
demands: the document would contain the various ways of incorporating
table information, per Ian; but it would also remove the summary
attribute from obsolete status, incorporate it as an example, and also
add more information (per William) about what the summary is.

This is a _compromise_.

This gives folks _options_ in how to describe tables.

Most importantly, all of the above combined helps ensure that people
are aware that they need to provide descriptive information about
tables for those using screenreaders. And, in the end, that's all that
matters.

This does _not_ abrogate additional accessibility input and changes in
the future. This has to do with @summary attribute, only.

I have volunteered the time to make the changes to an HTML spec, some
spec, and do what it takes to incorporate the changes into the main
document. But I'm not going to spend my time indulging in the same
useless, circular argument.

Either/Or. Either we continue these endless discussions, or we do the
work.  You asked for someone to take this on. I have expressed
willingness. I'm also willing to step aside if someone else from the
accessibility community wants to do this work. Or I'll work with
others, with the understanding that we're making this change in the
next couple of weeks, so this group can move on. Because we need to
move on.

Shelley
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 13:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC