Re: feedback requested on WAI CG Consensus Resolutions on Text alternatives in HTML 5 document

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2009, at 7:27 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> On Aug 16, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>>> I don't see how trying to better understand the document 
>>>>> constitutes an unreasonable burden of proof.
>>>> No, but asking for people to justify[1] changes to a spec that has 
>>>> not yet been determined to represent consensus does.
>>> In a disagreement, everyone should be asked to justify their position.
>> Agreed.
>>> As I pointed out, the current spec text was given detailed 
>>> justification[1] based on a great deal of often conflicting feedback.
>> Do you believe that justification specifically addresses the three 
>> points of differences you identified between Ian's and Steven's 
>> documents?
> Let's take the three points one at a time:
> (2) The Consensus Resolutions document does allow <figure> <legend> like 
> the spec, but it does not allow @title or a heading for an image-only 
> section to describe an image. The current spec allows this, only in the 
> case where the contents of the image are unknown.
> - I believe the rationale I cited explained why the HTML5 spec offers 
> some extra options for describe images in the case where the contents of 
> the image are unknown. However, it's not clear to me if this difference 
> is an explicit change request, which is why I asked for clarification 
> first. Steve already clarified that some of the differences I identified 
> were not deliberate.
> (6) The Consensus Resolutions proposal recommends an explicit reference 
> from HTML5 to WCAG 2.0.
> - I don't believe Ian has given a reason for not referencing WCAG. 
> Tentatively, my recommendation would be to add a citation of the latest 
> WCAG for additional accessibility advice, in a general section such as 
> the introduction or conformance criteria. WCAG provides additional 
> advice on many features of the spec, and will likely be updated over 
> time. But I'd like to verify that this satisfies the goals of those who 
> would like to add a WCAG reference.
> (7) The Consensus Resolutions document suggests that alt="" (empty alt) 
> without role="presentation" on the same element should trigger a 
> non-fatal validator warning that recommends adding role="presentation".
> - I think Ian's justification explains why empty alt is a fine way to 
> mark presentational images. I don't believe he anticipated this 
> particular suggested warning, but I think it's reasonable to ask for 
> motivation before analyzing the request. I believe Leif's feedback gives 
> some good reasons why this warning is not a good idea. I also 
> tentatively think it's not a good idea. But I don't want to reject it 
> out of hand without understanding the motivation.
> More generally, I think Ian justified what is currently in the spec, so 
> it's reasonable to ask requests for changes to be backed up with some 
> reasoning. It doesn't have to be extensive or detailed - I don't want to 
> make it a procedural obstacle. But in these cases, a little explanation 
> could go a long way towards reaching agreement.

The sentence above is a very important one.  I wish you had started out 
with it, as well as the paragraphs above it.

Within the last week <bb> was taken out.  I'm sure that Ian has posted 
partial explanations of his status all along the way.  And I've seen the 
comments on IRC about my not knowing how to use Google; as it turns out 
the particular email that you cited was already listed on issue-31:

So, yes, I knew that Ian felt that what he put in the spec was something 
that he agreed with.  What I didn't know, and you hadn't yet said, was 
that in two of the three cases you agreed with Ian.

You recently wrote about how a subtle difference in how those that 
advocated transcripts expressed their point made all the difference[1].

There is an important distinction between:

a) I have read Ian's position on these points, and based on what I see 
the arguments he has put forth are more persuasive, but I will remain 
openminded should more input be forthcoming.

b) WAI must justify any each and every change to what Ian has written (I 
don't think this is an unfair interpretation of what you wrote[2], but 
for reference the original version was: "what changes if any are 
suggested to the spec for each of these, and what WAI's justifications are")

>>> I don't see what consensus has to do with anything.The lack of 
>>> declared consensus does not make it any less appropriate to expect 
>>> people to explain their positions.
>> I was simply reacting to the fact that you were only asking one side 
>> to document their rationale.  If Ian's previous answers anticipated 
>> and already addressed the specific points of differences, then I 
>> apologize.  Otherwise, I respectfully submit that everyone should be 
>> asked to justify their position.
> If the points of difference are clarified, and Ian disagrees, I will 
> expect him to justify his position, and will ask him to do so if 
> necessary. On the ARIA points, I believe he has already agreed.

On the ARIA points, I believe that we have an agreement in principle, 
onee that is sufficient for Ian to make progress.  In fact, I believe 
that there is nothing stopping him now from making the matrix that we 
discussed, but Ian is not in any rush as he doesn't believe that it is a 
problem that ARIA isn't in HTML5's last call, something he recently 
reiterated.[3]  And based on what I see in IRC, given that an edit is 
required, it is clear that what Ian is waiting on is not an answer to 
his email, but on a complete new editor's draft[4][5].  I wish we had 
had this information on Thursday.

> Regards,
> Maciej


Received on Monday, 17 August 2009 04:21:40 UTC