Re: Moving forward with Issue-204

Hi Sam,

This is confusing.

You wrote to Janina:

> At the F2F, it was noted that a SHALL in a draft change proposal would
> have had the effect of precluding potential future advances in
> improving  accessibility.  Once that sentiment was expressed, it
> seemed to be one  that everybody in the room, independent of what
> proposal they supported, agreed with.  This lead to a change to that
> proposal that would increase consensus.

Which proposal are you referring to? The AllowAriaReferHidden [1]
proposal or the V3 proposal [2]?

I wasn't at the May 4, face-2-face meeting but from what I have
gathered John, Cynthia and Ted updated Cynthia's V2 proposal to the V3
proposal to  specifically addressed concerns raised at the F-2-F
meeting to increase consensus. V3 does not  preclude potential future
advances.

Jonas' AllowAriaReferHidden Change Proposal hasn't changed since March
 [3] (well before the May 4 F2F meeting).

> If you would like to increase consensus, I would encourage you
> to find a similar statement.

What statement in which proposal are you referring to?

Best Regards,
Laura

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
[2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
[3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/index.php?title=ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden&action=history

--
Laura L. Carlson



On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On 06/07/2012 11:26 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
>>
>> Hello, All:
>>
>> It seems that people are waiting for me to try and move Issue-204
>> forward. Allow me, then, to attempt in this email to cut to the core
>> question that still
>> separates the two Issue-204 CPs as I understand it. Can we, or can we
>> not, agree to spec changes for Sec. 7.1 which will take us to a single
>> CP on Issue-204 and avoid the WBS process? The two CPs in question are,
>> of course:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
>>
>> While also suggesting more global author warnings, proponents of
>> AllowAriaReferHidden have recently sought "must" requirements (or
>> perhaps only "should" requirements) on user agents as respects
>> Issue-204:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0128.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0129.html
>>
>> The rationale appears to be that to do so is no less burdensome than to
>> create a11y support for canvas:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0130.html
>>
>> Meanwhile, PF has stated it cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements
>> on user
>> agents in the context of Issue-204:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0156.html
>>
>> Our concerns are broader than any engineering challenge. Rather, they
>> are very much focused on the lack of demonstrated user benefit. Indeed,
>> they also include concern over anticipated user harm. This was
>> reiterated at the recent F2F and is summarised nicely at:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012May/0137.html
>>
>> So, since PF cannot accept "must" or "should" requirements on user agents
>> vis a vis Issue-204, can AllowAriaReferHidden accept "may" or "might"
>> language vis a vis user agents?
>
>
> From the W3C Process[1]: "Dissenters cannot stop a group's work simply by
> saying that they cannot live with a decision"
>
>
>> My apologies if this question was not evident from my previous postings.
>
>
> This question was evident, and can certainly be resolved via a survey.
>
> At the F2F, it was noted that a SHALL in a draft change proposal would have
> had the effect of precluding potential future advances in improving
> accessibility.  Once that sentiment was expressed, it seemed to be one that
> everybody in the room, independent of what proposal they supported, agreed
> with.  This lead to a change to that proposal that would increase consensus.
>
> If you would like to increase consensus, I would encourage you to find a
> similar statement.  If you don't think it is likely that you will find
> common ground with Jonas and others on this issue, then we should simply
> proceed to a survey.
>
>> Janina
>
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent
>
>



-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 11 June 2012 16:36:03 UTC