- 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>
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 supply > >> @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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012May/0094.html] > > 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, let's > > 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. JF
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 18:44:51 UTC