Re: Why I don't attend the weekly teleconference (Was: Input on the agenda)

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Shelley Powers wrote:
> 
> Actually, those are not "studies", Ian. You and Philip accessed some 
> publicly accessing information found online, and ran some queries and 
> look at the data, and then formed your conclusions.

If you have something better, I'm all for using that.

In the meantime, I'll use what we have, as it is better than nothing.


> >> > Murray wrote:
> >> > > Since you argue that browser makers are the ultimate gatekeepers 
> >> > > for visual representation of HTML, why do you not allow the same 
> >> > > role for AT makers?
> >>
> >> Ian wrote:
> >> > AT vendors do have that role. It's not up to us to "allow" or 
> >> > "disallow" it; it's a fact. Implementors have the ultimate veto on 
> >> > any implementation requirements we put in our specs not because we 
> >> > allow them to, but because in every literal sense if they don't 
> >> > want to do what we tell them to do, then they don't have to.
> >
> > Murray wrote:
> >> I would never suggest that it is up to us to allow or disallow.

Shelley wrote:
> But you do provide conformance requirements for authors, and authoring 
> tools. Much more so than was available in HTML 4.x. At least, that's my 
> reading. How much this will impact, I don't know.

I think you misread the above. It has nothing to do with authoring 
conformance requirements, it has to do with implementations and the 
requirements that apply to ATs.


> > There is no difference between an expert who posts anonymously to the 
> > mailing list while pretending to be a 12 year old student, and the 
> > same expert posting as someone who lists six professional 
> > organisations and three doctorates in his signature. They both have to 
> > argue their case like everybody else, and they are both going to be 
> > exactly as convincing.
> 
> Now, this is a little naive. I think you have a bias against those with 
> years of experience and training, and it clouds your own reason, Ian.

In the unlikely case that this is true, I actually ignore the source of 
e-mails when responding to feedback. You will notice for instance that the 
issues list doesn't list who sent what:

   http://www.whatwg.org/issues/

This is intentional just in case I am biased against one person or 
another, to avoid that bias.


> If there is a debate between Paul Krugman and a 12 year old, you'll have 
> to forgive me if I give more credence to Paul Krugman.

You'll have to forgive _me_, then, for treating them identically and 
applying the same standards to both.


> If anything, I see a decreased interest in providing any specialized 
> help.

If by that you mean that there is a tendency to prefer built-in 
accessibility (like <input type=date> rather than bolt-on accessibility 
(like <img alt>) then yes, that is intentional and is in fact intentional.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 01:24:19 UTC