- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:15:12 -0400
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Sam Ruby<rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: >> Joshue O Connor wrote: >>> Ian Hickson wrote: >>>> (I have been informed that in fact the WAI groups are more interested in >>>> voting on whether summary="" is in or out than on voting on what >>>> accessibility solutions should be used to make tables accessible, for >>>> instance.) >> Ian: such use of passive tense is unnecessarily provocative. One >> possibility is that your unnamed source or sources are mistaken. >> >>> and again. >>> >>>> Can the WAI commit to approaching accessibility issues holistically, >>>> instead of following one-solution agendas as I was recently informed is >>>> explicitly being done with the summary="" issue? >>> What is that supposed to mean? We are /all/ about holistic solutions, >>> however the current vote (as I understand it) is to be about @summary as >>> it currently is. While we (PF) do wish to talk about engineering a >>> better solution (as I am sure we can come up with one) this is /not/ on >>> the table at the moment. >> Joshue: clearly holistic means different things to different people. >> Identifying text as specifically targeting a set of individuals, and thereby >> excluding others, is apparently not something that some considers >> "holistic". Others feel that identifying text as being potentially >> redundant for those who are fully sighted, and thereby providing an option >> to render or hide this information based on user preference and abilities is >> the result a holistic approach to the issue. >> >> This situation is made more complicated by the fact that @summary is already >> implemented by a number of tools, had limited uptake on the public web, and >> often appears to be misused. >> >> Action 128 is assigned to you. My suggestion is that you focus on it. > > Sam, I realize that you're frustrated at the debate, and this cycle of > discussion, but sometimes you have a habit of shooting down legitimate > concerns and questions, and leaving one feeling like we've just been > sent to stand in the corner, and reflect on our general misbehaving. > > Frankly, this cycle would not be happening if there really were > genuinely open approaches to submitting alternative proposals. I'm > sorry that the W3C saw fit to open the can of worms by allowing the > process that started in the WhatWG to continue into the W3C, but > that's really the W3C's problem. > > If you're really serious about alternative proposals, then the WhatWG > HTML 5 specification should be considered just one of a variety, and > others should be linked directly from the front page, and the process > carefully delimited, again on the front page, so folks don't have an > assumption that the WhatWG version is the de facto version. That it is > potentially one of many. Each proposal, each group of editors, should > be given the same level of prominence and front page access. A note to > that effect should also be posted at the WhatWG. To get listed as such will require a decision. See Decision History[2]. I personally would support such a decision. > Otherwise, this whole process is nothing more than a way to get people > running around in circles, while Ian's HTML 5 slips through the cracks > because supposedly no one is submitting proposals, when they are, but > they're being ignored, back channel linked, and forgotten. > Not having a gatekeeper would have prevented all of this, but the W3C > put in a gatekeeper. And no, neither you, nor Chris, are the > gatekeepers. We can pretend otherwise, but that just leads to yet more > confusion, resentment, discouragement, and general unhappiness with > the HTML 5 effort. Hindsight is 20/20. I will note that Ian has done that has prevented Manu from producing a document. His role as a gatekeeper is greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain). My frustration is that more people haven't followed Manu's lead -- so far. Presumably, given time this will work out. > Laura's recent proposal is nothing more than a group of people trying > to level the playing field. She certainly didn't submit it because it > was fun to do so, and she has nothing better to do. Perhaps a little > respect might have gone a little to reassure people that their > concerns really do matter, rather than folks feeling like no matter > what we submit, it will just get dropped into a black hole [1]. If she wishes to produce a document that gets listed on the front page, I will ask Mike to provide her with CVS access, and once produced we can seek a Decision. > I know that Last Call is coming up, issues are being brought up again > and again, we can't seem to make head way, and a lot of people are > unhappy, and you most likely feel right in the middle of it, but blame > the responsible people at the W3C for the problems, not us. > > My 2 cents worth, since this is the 2 cent email list. Much appreciated. Seriously. >>> Cheers >>> >>> Josh >> - Sam Ruby > > [1] http://www.cssquirrel.com/comic/?comic=28 [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 19:16:00 UTC