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

RE: Issue 31c: Meta generator

From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:43:58 -0700
To: "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Steve Faulkner'" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, "'Judy Brewer'" <jbrewer@w3.org>, "'HTML Accessibility Task Force'" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "'HTMLWG WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <047401cd3526$31e4ccc0$95ae6640$@ca>
Sam Ruby wrote:
> >>
> >> It seems to me that it's obvious that if de facto all non-hand authored
> >> pages do not need to provide @alt, then some of them will fail to
> >> @alt unintentionally.
> >
> > A reasonable conclusion.
> Clearly people within the working group disagree as to what is "obvious"
> to them.

FACT: Julian Reschke and John Foliot have reached the same conclusion. *I*
consider Julian's conclusion reasonable.

QUESTION: Do we have "explicit" proof or "concrete evidence" that "... some
of them (non-"hand-authored" pages) WONT fail to supply @alt
unintentionally"? Do we have "explicit" proof or "concrete evidence"  that
authors will (or won't) game validators by using a meta-generator string to
silence conformance checkers?

> > And yet because there is no conclusive proof[1]
> >
> > [1:
> You are actively misrepresenting what is being requested.  Please go
> back and re-read the email that you cite.  In particular, the word
> "conclusive" appears nowhere in that email.

FACT: Sam is correct. I will quote from the Chairs' email:

	"Identification of explicit harm..."
	"... supported by concrete evidence..."

My apologies for jumping to conclusions or putting words into other's
mouths. Snipped from Sam's response was my final line:

	"The problem with proving future harm is that by the time you have
your proof, it is already too late."

QUESTION: Do we have "explicit" proof or "concrete evidence" that this will
NOT be a problem in the future, once evaluation/conformance tools
incorporate this Draft requirement?

This really comes down to betting on a role of the dice. 

FACT: Losing on that role will have a significant negative impact on
non-sighted users, as well as well-meaning authors who's tools will not help
them do the right thing.

> > (Or as I told a friend the other day, "...So because we have no *actual
> > proof* that giving a running chain-saw to a 6-year old is a dumb idea,
> > go ahead and give running chain-saws to 6-year olds...")
> Ratchet the rhetoric down.  It isn't helpful.  Consider this to be a
> public warning[2].

As an educator and advocate, I often use metaphors to draw analogies, so
that people who are not deeply involved with any particular topic can better
understand the problem-statement. I apologize if this particular metaphor
was offensive to some.

Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 18:44:51 UTC

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