W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > May 2012

Re: HTML-A11Y Task Force Consensus on Issue-204 (Updated)

From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:18:58 -0400
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120515181858.GF3420@sonata.rednote.net>
Sam Ruby writes:
> On 05/11/2012 08:35 PM, Janina Sajka wrote:
> >
> >The updated proposal is available at:
> >http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
> This proposal contains all of the necessary sections, and therefore
> could proceed to a survey at this time.
> >One objection was received against this consensus:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0046.html
> My read is that this email contains ten objections.
Is there a particular concern or question here? It surely isn't news
that the TF procedures evaluate consensus differently from the WG?

> So, the current status (anybody feel free to correct me if I have
> this wrong) is that we have two active proposals:
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/AllowAriaReferHidden
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/Correct_Hidden_Attribute_Section_v3
Yes, except that we specifically worked to bring the two into alignment
at the F2F. We worked directly with Ted creating V3, then and there in
our meeting room in Mountain View. Our understanding was that Ted was
satisfied with V3 and that he would spearhead a withdrawel of

> While it is clear that the TF prefers _v3 over AllowAriaReferHidden
> it is not yet clear to me that there exists strong objections to
> AllowAriaReferHidden.

Probably. Certainly we discuss the implications of this technique in
some detail. However, it is very hard to understand the Details Section
of AllowAriaReferHidden as presented. If that CP is not withdrawn, may
we please have an English language version of the proposed Details? So
that we might compare "apples with apples?"

> So before proceeding, can I get confirmation that:
> 1) Benjamin: that you do not object to AllowAriaReferHidden?
> Should it be the case that you object to both proposals and do not
> bring forward a proposal of your own, then your input is likely to
> get discounted.
> 2) A11y TF: you (collectively) do not intend to update _v3 further
> based on these objections AND you do intend to put forward
> objections to AllowAriaReferHidden that you believe to be stronger
> than the ones that Benjamin has put forward against _v3.


> If these objections are not forthcoming, then we will assume that
> people can live with AllowAriaReferHidden, and will proceed with at
> CfC.

This is not acceptable. It goes against what was decided at the F2F.
Please adhere to the agreement reached in Mountain View.


> - Sam Ruby


Janina Sajka,	Phone:	+1.443.300.2200

Chair, Open Accessibility	janina@a11y.org	
Linux Foundation		http://a11y.org

Chair, Protocols & Formats
Web Accessibility Initiative	http://www.w3.org/wai/pf
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 18:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:52 UTC