- From: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:02:34 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Mar 3, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Sam Ruby wrote: > Discussion has died down I wouldn't say it's died down at all. It's just moved to public-html-a11y. Until the summary discussion bubbled up over the last 2 weeks, it was the #1 topic, and the group was making progress. > If no Change Proposals are written by April 5, 2010 this issue will > be closed without prejudice. I don't see what purpose this serves. ISSUE-9 is one of the broadest in terms of the problem set and the work that remains to be done. From what I've seen of the discussion, each of the stakeholders has their own vision of how to proceed. Putting a deadline of one month (during which, BTW, many if not most accessibility people are preparing for and traveling to their largest conference of the year) to solve video accessibility is setting up the group for either a failure to meet the date, or a rushed proposal that may not fully address accessibility issues and doesn't have the support of the vendors who would implement the contents of the CP. What I want to know is, given there's an entire media accessibility subgroup[1] working on this, have the chairs asked any of them if this timeline is even remotely achievable? It seems that's a more logical path to a successful proposal than looking at the issues list, picking an oldie, and saying solve it in a month. I don't have any ability or inclination to delay this process, but robust video accessibility support across UAs does mean more to me than meeting an arbitrary deadline. (Just so things don't get spun out of proportion. Not that they would.) [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Sub-Group - m
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 17:03:16 UTC