- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:14:11 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, jongund@illinois.edu, jimallan@tsbvi.edu
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Hi Shelley, >> Others in the accessibility task force seem to agree with you too as >> they voted against the resolution. >> >> Jon Gunderson, who is an 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 Jon and Jim. > > I could wish both Jon and Jim would respond here, too. I don't know if they keep up with reading this HTML Working Group list. But I've included them on this email. Hopefully they will reply with additional thoughts if they have them. >> 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 hope it doesn't fall through the cracks. One of my greatest fears with these elements is that they will turn out like canvas with accessibility considered after the fact. >> 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 me...like 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. The word has been redefined and spun. Best Regards, Laura [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5 [2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html#LowRedef On 4/29/10, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Laura Carlson > <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> 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 me...like 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. >> http://mathiasbynens.be/notes/html5-details-jquery >> > > 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 > > Shelley > >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/200404_ftf-proposals/results#xq5 >> [2] http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html#LowRedef >> >> -- >> Laura L. Carlson >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com> >> 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 -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 00:14:47 UTC