W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [html4all] Fwd: Clarification of process for raising html5 accessibility related issues

From: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 23:20:18 +0200
Message-Id: <2BB1D2B6-2019-45C2-BB76-FE898E4DF098@robburns.com>
To: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@ieee.org>, wai-liaison@w3.org, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>, "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>

Hi Steve and all,

I'm all in favor of us clearing up the process surrounding the WG, but
I don't want to endorse Mike Smith’s unreasonable position regarding
the issue tracker. The issues Gregory added on my behalf are perfectly
within established norms for adding issues to the issue tracker. If
their are substantive objections to those issues, then the discussion
should focus on the substantive objections (i.e., what problems would
solving these issues cause for users, what confusion could solving
these issues cause for authors, what difficulties would implementors
face in implementing solutions to these issues, etc.).

We were invited to participate in this WG to create the next version
of HTML — incrementing from 4.01 to 5. Nothing has been introduced yet
into this specification to warrant such an increment, but I think
solving the issues that have been discussed by the WG in its first 6 –
14 months would warrant a 5.0 version number. We shouldn't need to all
gather together for this WG just to make sure the functionality added
by @alt and @summary aren't dropped, but instead to make an HTML
specification that really meets the needs of users and authors.

I'll repeat this again, because I think it keeps getting lost in the
discussion. Nearly all of the issues I raised (38 in all), are drawn
from the discussions and deliberations of the WG in the first 6 months
of the life of the WG. These are issues just like the other issues
raised and opened in the issue tracker. These are not proposals as
Mike Smith calls them in his way of dismissing them.  The proposed
solutions I've included along side those issues are only my first best
attempt at providing a workable and elegant solution to the issues
raised: and also as solutions intended to help shape the readers
understanding of the problem statements and use cases that constitute
each issue.

I've also included some proposed solutions because Ian has often said
he wasn't able to come up with a solution to address the WG members’
raised issues. These solutions are the types of solutions I expected
to see Ian incorporate into the draft after reviewing the HTML WG list
serve for that period (its first 6 months). Yet he claims he reviewed
all of those messages and either did not encounter these issues, did
not comprehend the issues or could not come up with what he thought
was a workable solution to these issues. In every case now I have
provided not only the issues distilled from the WG discussions, but
also a first step at a workable solution for each one of the issues.

So I think we should continue to use the issue tracker to raise the
issues that the WG members feel need to be raised. We should continue
to use the wiki to shape the use cases, problem statements and
proposed solutions for those issues. We should continue to discuss the
problems, implementation difficulties, authoring obstacles and user
needs surrounding those issues on the HTML WG list serve (which is an
official channel for the WG deliberations). And finally, we should
expect the editor or editors to be responsive to those issues and
incorporate solutions to those issues in to the draft — engaging the
WG in deliberations about the possible pitfalls and drawbacks as the
editors encounter them.

While certainly we should consider the PF WG as an authority to turn
to when needed, we should insist that the WG proceed in a fair and
effective manner without constantly hanging the PF WG over their / our
heads. The draft should really already reflect much more progress
after 15 months than we currently see.

Take care,

On Jun 13, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Steven Faulkner wrote:

> Over the past few weeks there has been discussion in the PF WG and the
> HTML WG about how to best raise/open and track issues related to
> accessibility features in HTML5 and if they are substantive [1] keep
> them open until they are resolved by HTML WG decision rather than at
> the discretion of the HTML5 editor.
>> From my understanding of what has been agreed [2], such issues will
>> be
> added to the HTML Issue tracker [3] when they are raised. They then
> will remain open until they are resolved.
> How does an issue get on the tracker?
> This appears to be largely at the discretion of the chairs, unless the
> issue is raised by a request from other WGs.
> So how is a HTML WG member to go about getting an issue on the
> tracker?
> I would suggest this process:
> 1. Raise an issue/proposal on the HTML WG mailing list or Bug tracker
> 2. If it there is no response from the HTML5 editor after a reasonable
> period of time or dismissed by the HTML5 editor and the HTML WG
> member(s) involved think it has not been  dealt with in a manner that
> takes into account implications for accessibility, (for example, a
> decision puts the needs of browser vendors before the needs of people
> with disabilities),  then email the PF WG for advice on the matter.
> 3. the PF WG will consider the matter, if they think it is a
> substantive issue that needs further consideration, a formal request
> will be sent to the HTML WG.
> [1] substantive issues include those that are likely to be the basis
> of formal objections at last call or have been formally raised by
> other working groups such as the PF WG.
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2008/06/12-html-wg-minutes.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/
> --
> 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
> -- 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> List_HTML4all.org mailing list
> http://www.html4all.org/wiki

List_HTML4all.org mailing list
Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 21:21:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:30 UTC