Re: ISSUES 90, 91, 93, 96, 97 -- if you support these change proposals

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Laura Carlson
<> wrote:
> Hi Shelley,
>> no one speaks up favorably on any of the proposals, I'm going to withdraw all of them.
> I support them, Shelley.

Thanks, Laura

> Others in the accessibility task force seem to agree with you too as
> they voted against the resolution.
> John Gunderson, who is a a11y task force member and the Assistive
> Communication and Information Technology Accessibility at the
> University of Illinois said on the survey [1]:
> "I think the more we can simplify HTML 5 elements the easier it will
> be to get HTML 5 and accessibility implemented and to explain to
> authors how to create accessible content in HTML5. Browser developers
> will probably not implement these elements anyway if they don't like
> them or do it inconsistently. There is a lot in HTML5 and I think we
> have enough to discuss without spending time on elements that may
> never be implemented."
> Jim Allan, who is an a11y task force member, Co-Chair of the User
> Agent working group and webmaster at the Texas School for the Blind
> commented [1]:
> "Creation of orphaned, poorly implemented or non-implemented elements
> is not the goal. Having rich semantics that do not require an
> accessibility api to function (not all people with disabilities use
> AT) is laudable. But, only if implemented. Current implementations -
> 0, aria workarounds - 5.
> I agree with both John and Jim.

I could wish both Jon and Jim would respond here, too.

> You have pointed out specific and detailed accessibility flaws in
> these elements. The a11y task force has said that they will make these
> elements better but have no action plan that I am aware of to do so.
> Nothing is in the Tracker. How are these elements going to be made
> accessible? I don't have the cycles for it. Who does? How will they be
> made accessible?

That is a good point, an excellent point.

I'm assuming that someone will be filing a bug for all of these.

> I have always used the three legged stool approach to web standards.
> Separate structure, presentation, AND behavior. I have concerns if
> introducing behavior into HTML is the right direction. Seems like
> contamination to putting presentational elements in that are
> hard to get out once they are there.
> Like you said, behavior is not semantics. It seems like an attempt at
> a fallacious or booby trapped low-redefinition [2] of the word
> "semantic".

The more I've written on these, the more puzzled I am at the use of
"semantic" as a form of universal goodness.

Frankly, in my opinion, HTML5 will be the last markup version that
introduces these declarative elements. Why? Because people aren't
interested in them, and frankly, as I hope my writing demonstrates,
they're not well defined. Seriously, the editor has tossed out some
vague directions and is leaving it up to the browser companies to do
their thing, and then eventually spec out what works.

> Another thing that is worrisome is using JavaScript to patch a native
> element which is supposed to be a solution for not having to write
> JavaScript.

I found that a fascinating exercise. No offense to Mathias' hard work,
he took about five times as much code to "emulate" details, as we
would to actually create a more effective implementation of details.

> Best Regards,
> Laura

Thanks again, Laura


> [1]
> [2]
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Shelley Powers <> wrote:
>> I had planned on making edits to the other Issue change proposals
>> based on the counter proposal, but I no longer have a lot of faith
>> that what I write is going to make any difference.
>> If these change proposals have impacted on any of you, or you agree
>> with any of them, you need to say something. Doesn't have to be all of
>> the change proposals, either, though they have been unconscionably
>> grouped by the HTML WG co-chairs.
>> Otherwise, if no one speaks up favorably on any of the proposals, I'm
>> going to withdraw all of them.
>> Shelley
> --
> Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 23:24:23 UTC