Re: "image analysis heuristics" (ISSUE-66)

hi Ian,

I made a suggestion, you are free to agree or disagree with that suggestion.
I don't understand your analogy about the W3C and WHAT WG HTML5 specs, but
don't want to waste time debating it.

There may well be cases where it is approriate to quote directly from
another document and other times that it is appropriate to paraphrase text
from another document, and other times when it is appropriate to write
something completely distinct without any implied or explicit reference to
another document.

As further review of the HTML5 spec occurs, there may arise situations where
the considered opinion of the working group is that it is appropriate to
include an inline quote from another specification.

I don't see this as either being illogical or inconsistent, you are free to
do so.

>I presume it is not simply an arbitrary opinion
>or a something silly like "well the UAAG is written by people who are more
>expert than we are and so we should defer to them".

The subject of the UUAG specification is user agent accessibility, it's is
not the subject of the HTML5 spec. I happen to agree with the advice in the
UAAG spec and think where applicable the HTML5 specification should
reference it, rather than reformulating it. I consider that interlinking the
specifications more could bring about better user agent accessibility
so rather than having only 1 reference to the UAAG  in a seperate section of
the spec.the same goes for the other accessibility related specs (I can't
speak in regards to ther specs)

If wherever there the HTML5 spec touches on user agent accessibility
requirements it referenced UAAG, it would be a real step forward for user
agent accessibility.

>After all, there is
>ample UA accessibility expertise in this working group -- we are even
>required by charter to have multiple UA vendors involved! So why should we
>quote the UAAG rather than including any relevant advice inline?
 >Could you state your case?

 The subject of the UUAG specification is user agent accessibility, it's is
not the subject of the HTML5 spec. I do not consider you do justice to
accessibility by selectively including bits of accessibility related advice
you find important, while neglecting other aspects.
 I do not think that the HTML5 specification as written provides consistent
and comprehensive advice on all aspects of user agent accessibility. I do
think it is inconsistent to selectively include bits of advice while
ignoring or downplaying others, which is what i consider to be the current
state of the HTML5 spec.

regards
stevef

On 8 February 2010 09:52, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

>
> (Steven clarified what his last e-mail meant so that I could answer it.
> Thanks Steven.)
>
> On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> > > >
> > > >It's not clear to me what advantage there would be to just having
> > > >lots of quotes
> >
> > I didn't suggest having 'lots of quotes' I suggested in this case it may
> > be useful to include a quote from the UAAG spec.
>
> As I see it this would mean having to chose between the following options:
>
> 1. Being consistent and switching to a style where whenever there exists a
> document that already says something that we want to say, we quote it
> instead of saying it in our own way, or
>
> 2. Being inconsistent and only having a quote here, not any of the
> hundreds of other analogous places where there exists a document with the
> same advice as the spec and where the same arguments could be applied.
>
> Now since being inconsistent is, well, inconsistent, as well as being
> illogical, I assumed you weren't proposing that. As far as I can tell,
> that leaves option 1, in which we have lots of quotes. I explained why I
> didn't think that was wise in a previous e-mail, but to make the point in
> a possibly blunter fashion, consider this: the WHATWG spec says everything
> the W3C HTML5 spec says. Does that mean we should replace the W3C HTML5
> spec with simply a quote of the entire WHATWG spec? If not, what is the
> difference between that, and what you're proposing? I don't see that
> there's anything any more special about the UAAG document than the WHATWG
> document, so why the difference in argument?
>
>
> > I support matts original proposal i.e. to strike the text from the spec.
>
> I understand that. I do not. I believe I've stated my case for why I have
> reached this conclusion: an argument based on what is more likely to
> result in accessible browsers (backed up by unsolicited support from one
> of the browser vendor engineers who I thought most likely to actually go
> out of his way to follow links!), and an argument based on the logical
> conclusion of such an editorial policy (as described above).
>
> Could you state your case? I presume it is not simply an arbitrary opinion
> or a something silly like "well the UAAG is written by people who are more
> expert than we are and so we should defer to them". After all, there is
> ample UA accessibility expertise in this working group -- we are even
> required by charter to have multiple UA vendors involved! So why should we
> quote the UAAG rather than including any relevant advice inline?
>
> --
>  Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html