- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:28:10 +0000 (UTC)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> 1) There are issues around to length and complexity of code examples. > The amount of code it takes to generate even a simple JavaScript menu is > voluminous and would turn document into large book on 'how to" program > JavaScript. This is beyond our ability and scope as a small group of part > time volunteer contributors to the initiative. You are declaring that it is beyond "our" ability and scope, but I didn't see a poll you sent out on that topic. This may be the first time that WCAG WG has admitted it is "a small group of part-time volunteer contributors"; I look forward to a subsequent admission of limited expertise. Peter-Paul Koch and, if we're lucky, one other expert can contribute, addressing both problems. The length of code samples is merely a fact of life, and using that as a reason not to actually provide techniques is a de facto admission that the Working Group panics when confronted with lines of code. > 2) Accessible JavaScript is still a thing which is very much in its > infancy, and there are still many problems to iron out, even among experts > in the field, which may not be fixed until XHTML 2.0, or later. That's true as far as it goes. Nonetheless, much is already known, and we're not in a position to write nothing on the topic because everything is not known. > 5) We don't have a large team of volunteers who are expert in > JavaScript which would be necessary to mount the kind of effort needed to > produce the JavaScript Techniques document we had been planning. See (1). See response to (1). > 7) We are under a time gun and perhaps we need to focus our energies > on *achievable* goals such as completing the HTML, CSS, reviewing 200 HTML > test files and creating test files for all the CSS techniques. Then I don't want any mention of scripting whatsoever. Don't try to be a little bit pregnant. And "under the time gun"? Come on. WCAG 2 is way behind and nobody will stand for having it rushed out now. We've got time. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> --This. --What's wrong with top-posting?
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 16:28:21 UTC