- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:10:05 +0100
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
At 9:42 -0500 29/06/09, Shelley Powers wrote: > > >> There is a clear concern on this list, supported by some data, that >> 'summary' is so polluted in practice that no-one who needs accessibility >> would ever bother looking at its value, which means in turn that no-one >> interested in supporting accessibility would bother putting data there >> because their constituency won't notice it. If this is true, summary may be > > irrecoverably polluted. We need to know if there is evidence to the >> contrary. >> > >Concern, yes. But not scientific study, which is what is claimed to >support a specific set of actions taken for that concern. > >Wouldn't another set of actions be a stronger clarification in the >HTML 5 specification about how the attribute is to be used? Isn't that >just as viable an action to take based on the concern? If the hypothesis is that summary is "irrecoverably polluted", which is what I wrote, then clarification of how we'd hoped it would have been used instead, is rather backwards-looking, isn't it? > > I think this lies behind some suggestions that we make accessibility 'work' >> from design aspects that everyone can perceive and verify, so that web >> authors are more likely to 'get it right'. So, far from trying to make >> accessibility invisible, it's an attempt to make it not a ghetto, but a >> normal aspect of everyday design. But it does lead to a situation where you >> can no longer point and say "see, this attribute is purely for >> accessibility, ergo, we support accessibility". >> -- > >Again, that is one solution, but it completely abrogates the purpose >behind summary, No, I am hypothesizing a solution which is equally or more effective for the user, and more likely to be authored and verified as the non-accessibility-needing also use and verify the data. Whether such a solution exists, i do not know, but it only "completely abrogates the purpose" if the purpose was to provide a unique talisman rather than a solution. >Regardless, I would appreciate that my arguments are seen as genuine >interest. It would be better if we all attacked the arguments and provided supporting data, yes. >More so, I do believe that I have asked questions and >expressed concerns that have not been addressed, I have heard the concern that something you clearly cherish is being considered for replacement; more than that is difficult to perceive. It may be that your tone is obscuring your message, perhaps. -- David Singer Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Monday, 29 June 2009 15:12:14 UTC