Re: Media Accessibility Discussion (Was RE: Adopting the media accessibility requirements))

Same here (as early in the morning Lyon time as possible).
Thanks,
Silvia.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:39 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Either works for me to the point that *time of day* is more important to
> know: Lyon is 8 hours ahead of California, so any afternoon sessions are
> smack-dab in the middle of the night. Thus my preference would be for as
> early in the day as possible: 9:00 AM Tuesday or Thursday represents 1:00 AM
> for this region of the world - late but not impossible.
>
> Cheers!
>
> JF
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Frank Olivier [mailto:Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com]
>> Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:40 AM
>> To: John Foliot; 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt'
>> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
>> Subject: Media Accessibility Discussion (Was RE: Adopting the media
>> accessibility requirements))
>>
>> (Sending mail on behalf of Janina, who is unable to send mail at the
>> moment due to IPv6 issues)
>>
>> P&F is interested in setting up a time for a media accessibility
>> discussion that all interested parties can attend/call in to; Tuesday
>> (November 2nd) or Thursday (November 4th) are the two best days for the
>> TPAC attendees to do this. Which days/times work best for other
>> participants that are not in Lyon?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Frank Olivier
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Foliot
>> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 2:16 AM
>> To: 'Aryeh Gregor'; 'Philip Jägenstedt'
>> Cc: public-html@w3.org; 'HTML Accessibility Task Force'
>> Subject: RE: Adopting the media accessibility requirements
>>
>> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> > <philipj@opera.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Since the two groups involved here (browser implementors and
>> > > accessibility experts) have obvious issues communicating with each
>> > other, it
>> > > would be helpful if we were all involved in the discussions as they
>> > happen,
>> > > rather than communicating via requirements lists.
>> >
>> > I agree with this general point.  It seems like right now, task
>> forces
>> > are formed, discuss things amongst themselves at length, and only at
>> > the very end present their findings to implementers and spec editors.
>>
>>
>> Aryeh, you are more than welcome (nay, encouraged) to participate in
>> the Accessibility Task Force, and specifically on this topic of media
>> user requirements.  As the co-chair of the media sub-team I have
>> consistently and regularly asked for feedback from the larger group
>> about this document, with very few people actually bothering to
>> respond.
>>
>> See for example:
>>
>> "...huge need to get this done for yesterday -- media subteam committed
>> to knuckle down, but need specific feedback from non-subteam members
>> ... even if only have 15 minutes, please consult
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist and
>> tag with a11y requirements; goal is to complete over weekend so can
>> discuss at TF telecon next week"
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/09/09-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>
>> "ms: we need implementers to give tech assessment of impact
>> jf: this has been a largely discussed topic for weeks,"
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/08/19-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>
>> "JF: Media Sub-Team update: making good progress turning requirements
>> into technical requirements ... worked through 50% of requirements ...
>> encourage people outside of subteam to weigh in and offer feedback and
>> comments as things progress ... need to have technical requirements and
>> user requirements stable enough to advance to the HTML WG next week --
>> perhaps 10 days left before moving reqs higher up the HTML5 food chain"
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/07/15-html-a11y-minutes.html
>>
>> ----
>>
>> Further, the User Requirements document in question has been published
>> and available for review and comment since late August, and was
>> specifically announced *nine weeks ago* today as needing/wanting more
>> feedback from the larger community:
>>
>> "We are to the point where we need to begin engaging the wider HTML 5
>> community in understanding the ramifications of these requirements, and
>> in collaborating on appropriate solutions. Thus, we invite you to
>> become familiar with the requirements, ask questions, offer
>> suggestions, and generally engage with us on next steps." (Thu, 26 Aug
>> 2010)
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Aug/0327.html
>>
>>
>> There are 51 registered members of the Accessibility Task Force,
>> including Ian Hickson and Philip Jägenstedt
>> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force#participants) who receive the
>> public-a11y mailing list, which includes these weekly minutes, the
>> minutes from the media sub-teams weekly (open) conference calls, as
>> well as all correspondence to the list (and while not 100%, many of the
>> emails that deal with media issues have been prefixed in the subject
>> line with [media]).
>>
>> Finally, Janina's note of Aug. 26th was sent to the larger HTML WG
>> public list (443 group participants), of which Ian, Philip and you are
>> also recipients, so you cannot say that we have not solicited feedback
>> before this - you may not have read it or acted upon it, but no-one but
>> you can control that, and the Accessibility Task Force cannot be blamed
>> for that. If you or others have further suggestion on how to ensure
>> that this is an open dialog, please feel free to offer those
>> suggestions, but to arrive at the end of the party complaining that it
>> started without you is disingenuous at best, and simply unfair. The
>> bulk of the discussion on how we arrived at these User Requirements
>> happened over the summer months and occurred, for the most part, on the
>> mailing list and via our weekly conference calls.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The latter are then forced to either accept the findings on the basis
>> > of authority, or demand detailed explanation of the rationale for
>> > every finding before they accept it.  The latter is usually what
>> > happens in practice except for very minor or obvious changes, and in
>> > that case, it would make much more sense if the implementers/spec
>> > editors were involved in the discussions from the beginning.
>>
>> The editor is free and welcome to join us in any way he chooses: he has
>> chosen to not do so - period.
>>
>> Implementers from the major browsers (with the exception of Opera) have
>> been weekly participants on the media sub-team conference calls, and
>> Silvia Pfeiffer (representing Mozilla), Eric Carlson (representing
>> WebKit) and Sean Hayes (representing Microsoft) all contributed to the
>> authoring and editing of the User Requirements document; in fact, Eric
>> Carlson and I actually met face-to-face twice, here in my office, while
>> we worked on this document together (a pleasant and enlightening
>> experience for both of us, I believe).
>> Thus to suggest that the implementers were not consulted or involved is
>> simply false.
>>
>> Would I like to see Opera and Chrome participants more active in our
>> work?
>> Yes - but I do not have the power to insist that they do so; it's
>> completely their choice. However to actively not involve oneself in the
>> process, and then complain that you've not been involved in the process
>> is a hyperbolic argument that has little traction or grounds for
>> sympathy.
>>
>>
>> > Or
>> > alternatively, that task force findings be written in a persuasive
>> > rather than authoritative manner, and present the evidence and
>> > reasoning for their decisions in a form that will convince people who
>> > aren't domain experts.
>> >
>> > In the end, the implementers are the ones who have to make the
>> > judgment on what features they'll implement.  When a proposed
>> > accessibility, internationalization, or other feature requires a
>> > tradeoff of some kind, it's impossible for them to make that tradeoff
>> > intelligently unless they're given the full background on why the
>> > feature is needed, as Henri says.
>>
>> This is exactly why we spent so much time ensuring that the user
>> requirements document was as complete and accurate as we could make it,
>> with both a prose narrative on the issue, as well as specific bullet
>> points outlining how these might likely manifest. It is also now
>> serving as the foundation for the creation of the Media Accessibility
>> Checklist
>> (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Checklist)
>> where we are taking these User Requirements and mapping them against
>> WCAG, UAAG, as well as a subjective Must/Should/May evaluation, all in
>> an effort to help implementers further address and understand the
>> numerous issues that accessible media brings to the table. Everyone who
>> has already been directly involved with this effort is aware of the
>> enormity of the issues, and of the work effort that will be required to
>> meet all of these User needs.
>>
>> What is extremely important to understand however is that there can be
>> no "trade-off" when it comes to accessibility; this is counter to a
>> core W3C Mission Statement, and would likely also land us in
>> significant legal quagmires. I think any and all of the legal teams
>> associated with the browser implementers would have a very difficult
>> time defending 'accessibility' to some user-groups while deliberately
>> not supporting
>> others: I'm no lawyer but I welcome you to investigate that statement
>> further if you doubt my 'basis of authority'.
>>
>>
>> > We aren't going to get anywhere if
>> > we have the stone wall of a task force separating experts on some
>> > particular matter from everyone else, with only limited communication
>> > over the wall.
>>
>> Communication is a 2-way street: we've been 'actively broadcasting' but
>> have you been actively listening? Feeding back? If there is an
>> appearance of a stone wall to you, it is one of your own creation:
>> we've in fact been trying to build a bridge, not a wall.
>>
>>
>> >  It would be to everyone's benefit if all concerned parties were
>> > involved from the start.  Hopefully that way implementers will learn
>> > more about accessibility, accessibility experts will learn more about
>> > implementation, and more workable proposals can be crafted from the
>> > get-go.
>>
>> And with the *direct involvement* of implementers from most of the
>> browser developers from the start, we believe we've come a long way
>> towards meeting that goal. I think that it would be fair to say that
>> Eric's, Silvia's and Sean's awareness and understanding of
>> accessibility issues has been enhanced since we started this work, and
>> I know *my* understanding of the technical requirements, issues and
>> difficulties has increased significantly by working with these folks.
>>
>> So I once again extend an invitation to you Aryeh to join us in the
>> media sub-team's efforts: there is still lots to do, and any and all
>> help is gratefully welcomed.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> JF
>>
>>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 02:05:44 UTC