- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:09:38 +1100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Matt May <mattmay@adobe.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: > >> However, it has to be understood that these two change proposals are >> only a start towards media accessibility. They are the most important >> techniques that the browser vendors will need to implement next to >> gain basic media accessibility. There will be a need for more >> techniques, but we will need to gain some experiences with these >> implementations first before moving on. So, even with these two change >> proposals coming in, I would suspect we should not close Issue-9, but >> use it to continue monitoring progress on media accessibility >> features. > > Speaking for myself and not necessarily my co-chairs (because I haven't > asked their opinion): What I would prefer to see is that we resolve the > issue based on some initial proposals, and then submit any proposals for > further improvement via the bug process. If the bug process turns out to be > insufficient for any further proposed improvements, then those specific > improvements can be escalated to their own tracker issues. > I do not think it is wise to continue recycling the same tracker issue for > multiple rounds of changes. Handling things that way would lead to an issue > that just stays open indefinitely. OK, once we're through with this round of change proposals on this issue, maybe the a11y TF can make an effort to register a set of bugs that are issues that are still open for the media elements. I guess that will also make it more concrete and is thus a good idea. I don't mind what process we follow as long as media accessibility get successively better, both in the spec and in browsers. :-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 10:10:30 UTC