Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Sam Ruby<> wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 2009, at 9:36 AM, William Loughborough wrote:
>>> Here's a "concrete proposal". It is terse and clear. It describes what is
>>> required to use it and its purpose. It has the further advantage that it is
>>> already in place and does not need any rewriting or even further discussion.
>>> It is purposely designed to provide a means through which a table is
>>> described (via text) for those users for whom the possibility of depiction
>>> (via graphics) is meaningless.
>>> summary = text [CS]
>>> This attribute provides a summary of the table's purpose and structure
>>> for user agents rendering to non-visual media such as speech and Braille.
>> That is a reasonable technical position. In fact, I agree that the spec
>> should describe what summary is for better than it currently does.
>> However, I also think the spec should continue to describe the alternate
>> ways of describing a table that it currently does, and should recommend
>> describing tables in media-independent markup whenever that is practical and
>> sensible.
>> All told, I think there's not a whole lot of distance between our
>> positions on this particular technical issue.
> Let me enumerate a few possible ways forward.
> Option #1 is that an editor steps forward and fills in the missing details
> incorporates them into a draft and submits that draft for consideration by
> the working group.  That editor could be Ian, but to date he has given every
> indication that the above text is not something he would be willing to put
> into his draft, for whatever reason.  It could also be any other person in
> the working group.
> Option #2 is for somebody to fill in the missing details (an example can be
> found at: [1]), and then some editor incorporates them into a draft and
> yadda, yadda, yadda.
> Option #3 is for somebody to create text for a straw poll or vote, then we
> hold a poll/vote, and then find somebody who, based on the results of the
> poll/vote, is willing to fill in the missing details and incorporate them
> into a draft and submit the result for consideration by the Working Group.
> Option #4 is to toss out some general and somewhat vague ideas of what a
> straw poll might look like and hope that somebody else continues with #3.
> Option #5 is to accept what currently is in Ian's draft.
> As for me, I am not going to step forward to be an editor.  I am not going
> to be the one to fill in the missing details on this issue.  I am not the
> one who is going to create the text for a straw poll or a vote.  I think we
> have plenty enough general and somewhat vague ideas on what a straw poll
> might look like that I feel no compelling need to add to this.  So, yes, if
> in this entire (and very open) workgroup, there is NO-ONE who is willing to
> drive this task to completion, I am quite willing to go with option #5.
>  Which would be a bit of a shame, as I sense that my thoughts are not all
> that far apart from Maciej's, but if ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is willing to step
> forward, I'm willing to live with the description of summary in Ian's draft.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
> - Sam Ruby
> P.S.  Shelley has since withdrawn the proposal below, but that doesn't mean
> that somebody else couldn't use it as either an inspiration or a starting
> point for their own proposal.
> [1]

If folks want to take this approach, and this moves us forward, I'll
be glad to make the edits into a snapshot of the latest editor draft.
Not sure how they would get into the editor draft, but would be
willing to give it a shot.

Let me know if the group forms consensus (or takes a vote) to take
this approach and will create a draft for folks to review. I'm not
sure, though, how accessible I will be after the first couple of weeks
of August, so if we can move either a vote or consensus through this
next week, it would be good.


Received on Sunday, 26 July 2009 03:43:59 UTC