Re: summary="" in HTML5 ISSUE-32

On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 11:16 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2009, at 6:08 AM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> >
> > That's the 2nd time in this thread that I've seen someone take issue
> > with the problem statement/goals. (the other
> > was Faulkner 24 Feb 2009 10:25:49 +0000).
> >
> > Ian, I have seen your responses regarding some of the proposed
> > solutions, but not these points about the problem statement.
> >
> > What do you think of the more constrained problem statement,
> > addressing "rendering to non-visual media such as speech
> > and Braille"?
> 
> Limiting the problem scope to non-visual media would, at first glance,  
> violate our Media Independence and Accessibility design principles:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#media-independence
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#accessibility

The conflict with the media independence principle is clear enough;
I don't quite see a conflict with the accessibility principle
as stated.

In any case, now I'm interested to hear from
Faulkner and others... do you see the conflict with
the design principles? Do you think we should make
an exception? Change the principle(s)? Or accept
the broader problem statement?

> If there is a specific reason that a feature only for non-visual media  
> would be more effective than a feature for all media, perhaps because  
> trying to be fully general hurts the non-visual case, then it might be  
> appropriate to have a feature for non-visual users only. But it seems  
> to me that assuming this in the problem statement is contrary to our  
> Design Principles. We should consider all users unless there is a  
> specific reason not to in a particular instance.
> 
> Regards,
> Maciej
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2009 20:51:47 UTC