- From: Mark Sadecki <mark@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:11:11 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>, "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
On 7/11/14, 8:46 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: > I think what mark was reacting to was the suggestion that we also add text to > the header: Note (informative) I see. Well, since its not inserted manually by the editor, there is no hardship associated with it. I see no harm in clearing indicating the non-normative nature of the content, especially for those who may have arrived via an fragment link, be they developers or not. Best, Mark > > I don't think anyone has objected to the concept of ensuring informative > portions of documents are wrapped in an element that correctly indicates that > state to people who are using assistive technology. > > Maybe I missed something. > > On Jul 11, 2014 2:25 PM, "Mark Sadecki" <mark@w3.org <mailto:mark@w3.org>> wrote: > > On 7/11/14, 11:57 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 11, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > > > >> Marcos, I do *not* disagree with you, but your statement reminded me of > one of my very early experiences in the standards world. I share it for your > amusement, but it may also change your mind. > >> > >> I was working on X3J11 (ANSI C) in about 1986? > > Much respect. > >> In reviewing a draft, there was some language that was overly complex and > honestly unclear. I'm a smart guy and a native English speaker, so I finally > puzzled it out. But non-native speakers or people who can't readily parse a > 100 word sentence might have trouble. I proposed a change to basically split > up the sentence and remove some punctuation so there were fewer dependent > clauses. > >> > >> A few months later, when the committee was done processing all of the > change requests, the reply I got was along the lines of "Thank you for your > comment. Your proposed change is rejected. A complete reading of the > standard would render full understanding of this issue". > >> > >> In other words, if I read the entire document, I would have known what > that section meant. I didn't need to be reworded. > > Thanks for the apropos anecdote, Shane. It makes a very good point. > > That's very sad to hear. The committee were either incompetent or lacked > judgement when rejecting your change (specially if it helped clarify things). > > > > However, your change was still to normative text. And although I take your > point about not needing to backtrack to know what is informative and what is > normative, this still doesn't strengthen (in my mind, at least) the need to > add "this is informative" explicitly on a note. > >> People don't read the entire document. Other documents link into our > specs - to sections that have normative text and embedded notes. I am as > lazy as the next guy. I am not going to scroll up to the conformance section > to see whether notes are by default informative in the spec I am reading at > the moment. I'm just not. > > > > Personally, I'm still not convinced that this is an issue. Unlike other > consortia, we have a strong culture of being very developer focused. > Hi Marcos, I would like to hear you elaborate on how being developer focused > absolves us from clearly delineating normative and non-normative text, > specifically for users of assistive technology. > > > > My gut reaction here is that I sometimes feel like we are trying to "fix" > things preemptively without data to show there is actually a problem. > > This discussion began when I attempted to address point 3 in the Editorial > Comments section of Jim Allen's comment [1] on the HTML5 Image Description > Extension, specifically: > > "The problem with graphical formatting is that the blocks starting > with "This section is informative" are indented and have a differently > colored background, but there is nothing textual to denote where the > block ends." > > From a screen reader users perspective, it is unclear when a block of text that > is solely distinguished with visual formatting begins and/or ends. I was not > requesting that we add bloat to the rendered text. I was proposing that we add > two additional attributes, a role, and an aria-label. I hardly think this is > adding any hardship to the editor, who only needs to add a ```class=note``` > (which they presumably are already doing) to the <div>, respec does the rest. > What this does is it creates an experience for the screen reader user that > clearly announces what the role of the block is, when it begins and when it > ends. I was not requesting that additional text be rendered to the page. > > Best, > > Mark > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014Jan/0068.html > > > > > -- > Mark Sadecki > Web Accessibility Engineer > World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative > Telephone: +1.617.715.4017 <tel:%2B1.617.715.4017> > Email: mark@w3.org <mailto:mark@w3.org> > Web: http://w3.org/People/mark > -- Mark Sadecki Web Accessibility Engineer World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative Telephone: +1.617.715.4017 Email: mark@w3.org Web: http://w3.org/People/mark
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:11:18 UTC