Re: Discussion: Accessibility Issues Procedure

hi maciej
 a document that may be relevant is the charter [1] of the protocols and
formats working group

"The mission of the *Protocols and Formats Working Group*
(PFWG<http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/>)
(Member Confidential PFWG <http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/Group/>) is to increase
the support for accessibility in Web specifications. This mission flows from
the W3C mission of promoting universal access and
interoperability<http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/>across the Web.
"

"The PFWG's scope of work includes:

   - Assuring the accessibility qualities of the technologies as specified
   in W3C Specifications"



So it is not like the other working groups you cite, as its main goal
involves ensuring the accessibility of the technologies of other
specifications.

I agree wholeheartedly that the PF or anybody else should be demanding
changes, at the same time the PF has a legitimate purview to review all
specifications produced by the W3C and provide advice on the apsects of the
specifications that affect accessibility.

the PF can make rcommendations if those recommendations are not accepted by
individuals in the working group such as yourself or the editor, but are
accepted by other members such as myself, then further discussion is
warranted, if this discussion does not result in consensus, then a vote on
the issue can be requested.

All normal and legitimate W3C working group process as far as i understand.

If the PF is not satisfied with the outcome and consider it of sufficient
importance then they can lodge a formal objection at last call as can other
working groups or individuals. Though a better outcome would be if the 2
groups work together to resolve any outstanding issues before last call,
which I think is what lauras document was seeking to formalise.

Now whatever process is used, there are 2 outstanding accessibility related
issues that I will consider lodging formal objections on.
1. canvas accessibility
2. the image section content related to alt.

myself and others, both inside and outside the html and PF working groups
are working to resolve these issues.

regards
stevef



[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/charter200612#Mission

2009/7/25 Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

>
> I propose the full text of this proposal should be deleted and replaced
> with:
>
> "Decisions on accessibility issues should be made in the same way as any
> other issue before the HTML Working Group, in accordance with our Charter
> and Decision Policy".
>
> Rationale:
>
> The proposed policy has several flaws.
>
> First, the proposed policy suggests to give veto power to the PWFG over
> accessibility issues (the proposed process is that no issue may be
> considered closed until the PFWG is happy, and can be closed as soon as PFWG
> is happy.). While it's W3C practice to consult with and consider the input
> of other Working Groups in related areas, it is also accepted standard
> practice that requests of other Working Groups may be declined. For example,
> I have seen the CSS WG and SVG WG decline each other's requests many times,
> in areas of their respective expertise. Thus, the proposed process is out of
> line with the norms and official Process of the W3C.
>
> Second, the request to give WAI/PFWG a veto power does not even come from
> WAI itself; instead it is made by an assortment of people, some of whom are
> not WAI members at all. If WAI really wants that kind of power over other
> W3C Working Groups, then I think it should officially make the request
> itself.
>
> Third, I think the proposal is inappropriate because essentially demands
> that the HTML Working Group should genuflect and kiss the ring. I think
> respect and collegiality with other W3C Working Groups is appropriate, but
> obsequious subservience is not. The HTML WG has the authority to make
> decisions on the documents within its charter, and is not obliged to get the
> approval of external groups.
>
> Fourth, I think the proposal is in bad faith because its proponents have
> been unable to get their way on certain issues by arguing technical merits
> or by consensus building, so they want to change the rules so they can
> automatically win. I think trying to change the rules so you can get your
> way is inappropriate.
>
> Fifth, there's no reason accessibility issues can't be handled in the same
> way as any other issue within the purview of the HTML Working Group. Anyone
> can become a member of the HTML WG and be heard the same as anyone else. In
> fact, the signatories of this proposal are all HTML WG members and have been
> among the most vocal.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
>
>  Hello Everyone,
>>
>> As you know a procedure to promote progress with accessibility issues
>> [1] was recently submitted to this HTML working group.
>>
>> We would like to invite everyone's input and suggestions for alternate
>> wordings of the procedure. Please include:
>>
>> 1. The specific text that you are addressing.
>> 2. Proposed verbiage for the change you would like made.
>> 3. The rationale behind your proposed change.
>>
>> Please send your comments to this thread by July 31, 2009. A
>> discussion page for the procedure has also been set up in the Wiki
>> [2].
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0556.html
>> [2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityIssueProcedure/Discussion
>>
>> --
>> Laura L. Carlson
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html