RE: ISSUE-9 video-accessibility: Call for Consensus to close in favor of specific issues, or Alternate/Counter-Proposals

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> The existing proposals for ISSUE-9 seem to cover a mix of the timed
> text support that is already in the spec, and matters covered by ISSUE-
> 142 and ISSUE-152. Therefore, it seems like ISSUE-9 is now adequately
> covered by these fine-grained issues it should be closed.
> 
> The Chairs are calling for consensus to close ISSUE-9 in favor of these
> more specific issues. If anyone objects to closing ISSUE-9 at this
> time, then we expect volunteers to create alternate/counter-proposals
> for whatever aspect of ISSUE-9 is not covered by 142 and 152.
> Objections to closing ISSUE-9 are due by March 3, 2011. If there are
> objections to closing, then alternate Change Proposals are due by March
> 23, 2011.

Chairs,

During our media sub-team conference call of March 2
(http://www.w3.org/2011/03/02-html-a11y-minutes.html) we discussed this
CfC.

It is the general consensus of the group that Issue 9 was mostly a
conceptual Issue, in that it was vaguely worded and had few if any
specific deliverables associated to it. We note that the User Requirements
Document
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Accessibility_Requirements), the
JavaScript API (http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_MultitrackAPI),
and the Timed-text API
(http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations) have all
emerged towards addressing Issue 9.

It is thus the umbrella Issue under which all other media accessibility
related outcomes have "lived". Along with the 2 open Issues noted above,
there are other media accessibility bugs currently in the system that
reference Issue 9 (#11593, possibly related to Issue 152), as well as one
request (by me) to escalate Bug 10693 (bug first submitted 2010-09-23) to
an Issue.

A concern surfaced in our discussion that in many instances, when an Issue
is closed, it also closes/resolves all child Issues and bugs that
reference that Issue. (This might be a mechanical operation done by the
bug-tracker/Issue tracker). 

If this is the case with Issue 9, then closing it now would jeopardize the
other Issues and bugs we are actively working on, and if this is the case
I will submit an Objection that would effectively state that it is
premature to close this Issue at this time, as *all* aspects of "how
accessibility works for <video> is unclear" have not yet been resolved.
The concern is that active bugs 'tagged' with Issue 9 would disappear with
the closing of the Issue. 

If however this is not the case for this Issue, that the Chairs, like the
media sub-team, see this as simply an umbrella Issue that served to focus
our work, and that closing it does not affect other Issues or bugs around
media accessibility, then the media sub-team have no problem with stating
that Issue 9 provided us the scaffolding from which our existing framework
has emerged, and that the Issue 'as writ' can be closed as we now pursue
specifics towards ensuring the overarching goal first expressed in Issue
9.

Your thoughts and guidance on how to proceed are actively solicited. 

(If the guidance from the chairs is that an Objection should be filed, I
then respectfully request 24 hours from when that guidance is posted to
submit the Objection, which *may* miss the Mar. 3 midnight deadline
slightly, depending on when the Chairs respond).

Thank you for your assistance.

JF

Received on Thursday, 3 March 2011 01:10:44 UTC