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

Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:12:00 -0400
Message-ID: <4A6C8050.1040204@intertwingly.net>
To: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, W3C WAI-XTECH <wai-xtech@w3.org>
Steven Faulkner wrote:
> hi maciej
>  a document that may be relevant is the charter [1] of the protocols and 
> formats working group
> 
> "The mission of the *Protocols and Formats Working Group* (PFWG 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/>) (Member Confidential PFWG 
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/>) is to increase the support for 
> accessibility in Web specifications. This mission flows from the W3C 
> mission of promoting universal access and interoperability 
> <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/> across the Web. "
> 
> "The PFWG's scope of work includes:
> 
>     * Assuring the accessibility qualities of the technologies as
>       specified in W3C Specifications" 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is not like the other working groups you cite, as its main goal 
> involves ensuring the accessibility of the technologies of other 
> specifications.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly that the PF or anybody else should be demanding 
> changes, at the same time the PF has a legitimate purview to review all 
> specifications produced by the W3C and provide advice on the apsects of 
> the specifications that affect accessibility.
> 
> the PF can make rcommendations if those recommendations are not accepted 
> by individuals in the working group such as yourself or the editor, but 
> are accepted by other members such as myself, then further discussion is 
> warranted, if this discussion does not result in consensus, then a vote 
> on the issue can be requested.
> 
> All normal and legitimate W3C working group process as far as i understand.
> 
> If the PF is not satisfied with the outcome and consider it of 
> sufficient importance then they can lodge a formal objection at last 
> call as can other working groups or individuals. Though a better outcome 
> would be if the 2 groups work together to resolve any outstanding issues 
> before last call, which I think is what lauras document was seeking to 
> formalise.
> 
> Now whatever process is used, there are 2 outstanding accessibility 
> related issues that I will consider lodging formal objections on.
> 1. canvas accessibility
> 2. the image section content related to alt.
> 
> myself and others, both inside and outside the html and PF working 
> groups are working to resolve these issues.

It is my hope that before we get to the formal objection stage that 
there be a concrete and complete counter-proposal for people to 
evaluate.  It is my belief that you are working on doing exactly that, 
and should you do so, I will support you in any way that I can.

> regards
> stevef

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 16:12:43 UTC

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