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

Re: Design Principles

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 17:19:55 -0700
Cc: 'Sam Ruby' <rubys@intertwingly.net>, 'Laura Carlson' <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Michael(tm) Smith'" <mike@w3.org>, 'Chris Wilson' <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, 'public-html' <public-html@w3.org>, 'Ian Hickson' <ian@hixie.ch>
Message-id: <3CB2746F-8B7C-414D-B553-E49482A7C5B6@apple.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>

On May 20, 2009, at 11:42 AM, John Foliot wrote:

> Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> 1) Mark the examples more clearly as such, and make clear that the
>>> individual features captured in the examples are subject to change
> with
>>> a disclaimer. (Right now examples are only indicated by a green left
>>> border, without any explicit label as examples.)
>>> 2) Remove all examples.
>>> My preference would be for #1. Would that be a suitable way to  
>>> address
>>> the objection? I would rather not remove the examples entirely,  
>>> and I
>>> don't think it is possible to have examples without reference to
> specifics.
>> Is there anybody here who feels that neither of these two  
>> approaches is
>> sufficient?  I'll ask the same question on this week's Thursday call;
>> and if we don't hear anybody objectioning by next Thursday's call, I
>> propose whomever is chairing that call (currently scheduled to be  
>> Chris)
>> declares consensus on that approach at that time.
>>> Regards,
>>> Maciej
>> - Sam Ruby
>> P.S.  I like examples.
> Some thoughts on examples:  I agree with Sam, that examples are  
> extremely
> useful in 'teaching' appropriate usage and guiding developers on the
> proper implementation of <foo> elements, attributes, etc.  Had we  
> good,
> clear examples of the proper use of @longdesc a decade ago, we'd like
> would have seen better examples in the wild.
> I would suggest however that examples in both the Design Principles &
> Draft Specification must be vetted by all parties at the table, as  
> like it
> or not, they become part of an official document/process.
> For example: While it's been quite a while since I've trudged  
> through the
> entire Draft Spec, I do monitor certain areas closer to my interest,  
> in
> particular the section of 'what' @alt text values should look like:  
> some
> of the examples are, to many, overly verbose and intrusive.  I  
> recognize
> that it is/was an attempt by the author/editor/benevolent dictator to
> provide guidance, but as has been noted previously, it is guidance  
> from
> the wrong center of expertise.  @alt should indicate the alternative  
> of
> the image, and avoid being overly descriptive: there are other tools  
> that
> are more appropriate for that task (@title? @longdesc? Aria- 
> describedby?),
> and as specific example, this is not correct:
> <img src="images/parsing-model-overview.png" alt="The network
> passes data to the Tokenizer stage, which passes data to the Tree
> Construction stage. From there, data goes to both the DOM and to
> Script Execution. Script Execution is linked to the DOM, and, using
> document.write(), passes data to the Tokenizer.">
> I am not current as to whether or not this has been noted, but would
> suggest that to reach consensus a review and evaluation of these  
> types of
> concerns within the examples of both the Design Principles and Draft
> Specification should be undertaken - and yes, I can assist (but  
> sadly do
> not have the cycles to undertake single-handedly)

This doesn't seem relevant to the Design Principles document, as these  
examples are from the HTL5 Draft itself.

> The other issue I noted from this exchange is
> "...Right now examples are only indicated by a green left border,  
> without
> any explicit label as examples..."
> ...which is a direct contradiction to:
> WCAG 2 - 1.4.1 Use of Color: Color is not used as the only visual  
> means of
> conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element. (Level A);
> WCAG 1 - 2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also
> available without color, for example from context or markup.  
> [Priority 1];
> and Section 508  1194.22 c) Web pages shall be designed so that all
> information conveyed with color is also available without color, for
> example from context or markup.
> That we have gotten this far and still have such glaring accessibility
> issues is troubling at the very least - we should be eating our own  
> dog
> food yes?

One of the editors (me) just proposed to remedy this sisuation, by  
marking examples clearly as such, unless we decide to instead remove  
all examples. As far as I can tell, no one objected to this over the  
past two years until just now when I suggested to change it. Do you  
disagree with the proposed change?

That being said, I think the problem is not that the left side bar is  
green, but that the bar is the only indicator. Color blind users would  
still see a bar, it's just that a green bar and a bar of indeterminate  
color are both poor indicators that the text is an example. Using  
words such as "Example:" or "Examples of this principle in action"  
would be much more clear.

Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 00:20:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:47 UTC