W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pfwg-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

Encouraging feedback from the community [was Re: HTML 5 integration issues ]

From: Aaron M Leventhal <aleventh@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:04:29 -0400
To: unagi69@concentric.net
Cc: mjs@apple.com, public-pfwg-comments@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf@w3.org, w3c-wai-pf-request@w3.org, wai-liaison@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF21BAB38C.0A72A05F-ON8525740B.005D12B6-8525740B.005DEE19@us.ibm.com>
You can't expect everyone to understand ARIA well enough to provide good 
comments and ulitamately ensure a great standard. There's a steep learning 
curve. People are very busy "doing the right thing for the web" all day 
long plus some.

It's good to encourage feedback by streamling the process and responding 
positively. 

IMO, we should have a public mailing list with an easy automated way to 
signup and quit. pf-comments is one way. I see no point in that because it 
does not allow discussion. We should really react happily when people take 
the time to ask the hard questions, and make it easy for them to find the 
right place to ask them and be part of a discussion.

- Aaron





"Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net> 
Sent by: w3c-wai-pf-request@w3.org
03/13/2008 12:33 PM
Please respond to
unagi69@concentric.net


To
Aaron M Leventhal/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, <public-pfwg-comments@w3.org>, 
<w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf-request@w3.org>, <wai-liaison@w3.org>
cc
<mjs@apple.com>
Subject
Re: HTML 5 integration issues







aaron wrote:

quote
Maciej described his concerns in an email with PFWG CC'd. In addition, 
the folks on whatwg were given several ways to send in their question, 
but presumably are also busy with other things. If you look at the 
concerns they are legitimate. No one is saying don't use ARIA. However, 
they are saying please explain how ARIA semantics intermix with HTML 
semantics. So let's get to the business of sweeping our own floor.
unquote

meaning what?  ARIA isn't important enough to rise to the level of dialog
slash discussion with the group (PF) which is drafting the specification? 
that ARIA is dependent upon HTML5, which doesn't even exist yet, outside 
of 
a few drafts with massive holes in them?  our own floor is clean -- it is
the HTML5 floor that resembles that of an abittoir (a $5 dollar euphemism
for slaughter-house), and ARIA processing isn't the ONLY issue that needs 
to be addressed in terms of HTML5...  if there are concerns, let them be 
brought to PF directly, not through intermediaries or indirectly through 
non-W3C fora...  W3C members, in particular, know full well not to wait 
until LC to provide feedback if they are genuinely interested in the 
technology being developed, and if they have concerns, let them bring them 

up directly with PF or via the W3C member's representative to PF, rather
than threatening ARIA's progress -- if necessary, we should ask the 
hypertext coordination group to declare that ARIA integration is a top 
level priority for all of the MLs under the HTC's purview, rather than let
our arms be continually twisted by a faction of the HTML WG...

aaron also wrote, quote:
We need answers for these questions and then once we have them, ask that 
ARIA be included in the HTML spec. When we're ready it can be discussed on 

public-html.
unquote

how are we to provide answers based upon a draft technical recommendation
upon which there is VERY little agreement, aside from those who have a 
vested interest in HTML5 due to their involvement/investment in the WHAT 
WG effort?  this is definitely more of an HTC issue than an HTML WG issue

and as for questioning ARIA's use, have you looked at HTML Issue #35? 

<q 
cite="http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/35">

ISSUE-35
aria-processing

Need to define processing requirements for aria states and properties 
when used in html

State:
    OPEN

Product:
    HTML 5 spec

Raised by:
    James Graham

Opened on:
    2008-02-18

Description:

    Integration of the aria specification in html requires detailed 
    processing requirements for the states and properties it defines 
    when used in html. It also requires consideration of how aria 
    features interact with html-native features and, where 
    functionality is duplicated, consideration of whether the 
    advantages of having more than one way to achieve the same effect 
    outweighs the cost.

    aria spec:
    http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/

    Overlap between longdesc and aria-describedby:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Feb/0273.html

Related Actions Items:
    No related actions

Related emails:

1. minutes HTML WG weekly 21 Feb (from connolly@w3.org on 2008-03-09)

2. Re: ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements 
for aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
ian@hixie.ch on 2008-02-21)

3. Re: ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements 
for aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
jg307@cam.ac.uk on 2008-02-21)

4. Re: ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements 
for aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
simonp@opera.com on 2008-02-21)

5. Re: ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements 
for aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
oedipus@hicom.net on 2008-02-21)

6. Re: ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements 
for aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
mtanalin@yandex.ru on 2008-02-18)

7. ISSUE-35 (aria-processing): Need to define processing requirements for 
aria states and properties when used in html [HTML 5 spec] (from 
sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-02-18)

Related notes:

2008-02-21 17:18:51:

this "issue" represents a fundamental mis-understanding of the point of 
ARIA markup and the PFWG's attempts to work with the HTML WG -- as stated 
by Al Gilman in a post to public-html

<q cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0903.html
">
The working group likes the idea of having built in semantics in HTML 
and in particular would prefer to have common document elements, such 
as widgets built in to the markup. This reduces download size and the 
effort required to make a web page accessible. For these reasons, we 
would promote the use of such markup over the ARIA approach. That said, 
we do believe that HTML 5 will not incorporate document elements for 
all those included in the ARIA role taxonomy nor will it include all 
the states and properties. For these reasons, backward compatability 
for the ARIA specifications is a must.
</q>

further on in his email, Al Gilman also states:

<q cite="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jul/0903.html
">
To summarize, our goals for HTML 5 are as follow:

* Support for issues highlighted in Table: 1 of the ARIA Roadmap
* Backward compatability to ARIA, including the role attribute.
* Allow for full interoperability with assistive technologies
* A preference for access to accessibility information via the DOM
* Reduced efforts by authors to support assistive technologies
* Support for the access element or a version of it.
* Maintain equivalent or improved accessibility features of HTML 4.01
</q>

i vote that this is a NON-ISSUE [Gregory Rosmaita]
</q>

gregory.
--------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of
focus.                                           -- Mark Twain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita: oedipus@hicom.net
   Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/
          Oedipus' Online Complex: http://my.opera.com/oedipus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 17:06:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:45:56 UTC