W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2009

Re: evidence of harm

From: Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:06:14 +0100
Message-ID: <55687cf80906250706w5fd58d31r3eaa6ed2de05cabf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, public html for all <list@html4all.org>
Hi sam,

>you stated that my response on obfuscates the issue for you

much clearer this time, thank you.

My understanding was that it had previously been decided that the
summary issue would be put to a vote:

"ACTION-126 - Send a call to the WG to update the Wiki page to
adequately reflect both (all) viewpoints on summary, in prep. for a
vote [on Sam Ruby - due 2009-06-11]." [1]

On the issue of alternative specs:

If a person or group of people have a an issue with a particular
section of Ian's spec, then do they need to create a whole now spec or
just create an alternative version of a section of the spec?

Creating a whole new spec sounds impractical and unnecessary to me.

If it is just a section, what is (will be) the process for deciding
between the section in Ians spec and an alternative.

I ask this as I have previously spent time on alternatives not found
there to be any process for dealing with them other than Ian reviewing

Also in the case of the issues of canvas accessibility, while I have
put forward some ideas about it [2], I don't have the technical
knowledge (I am no expert)  to develop and adequate specification. But
I do not think that because no one who is capable will step up to
write a spec, it means that the issues should not be dealt with.

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/actions/126
[2] http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=362


2009/6/25 Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>:
> Steven Faulkner wrote:
>> Hi Ian,
>> you wrote:
>> <Hixie> annevk2: that's not the path of least resistance; i, for one,
>> would object strongly to that solution as it has been shown to
>> actually harm users [1]
>> While i think the summary attribute has
>> 1. been abused
>> 2. been incorrectly used
>> 3. been a unecessary time sink  for all involved in its presence or
>> lack of in HTML 5.
>> 4. been concentrated on at the expense of other more important
>> accessibility issues.
>> I don't know of any evidence where it has been shown to "harm users"
>> you wrote:
>> <Hixie> i guess i wish the chairs would at least give some guidance on
>> how to proceed
>> agreed, if this would have occured 6 months or a year ago, then a lot
>> less time and effort would have been wasted.
> Steven, the last time I tried to answer this, you stated that my response on
> obfuscates the issue for you[1].  I'll try again, but if I'm not successful,
> I'll need more to go on in order to be more helpful.
> I'll try to paint a complete picture, which means that I need to start from
> the beginning.  Bear with me.  Meanwhile, while I don't doubt that there
> will be cases in the future where Ian will need to be overruled, at the
> present time I don't see summary as being one of those cases.  If people
> really want to put this to a vote, I'll accommodate, but I will need some
> help in formulating the question.  Longer answer follows:
>  - - -
> Ian volunteers to author a document.  There are limits on what you can ask
> any volunteer to do.  My first six months as co-chair, I've focused on
> removing obstacles which may have been preventing more people from
> volunteering.  The next six months I intend to be spending more of my time
> supporting those that actually chose to do so.
> If this means more specifications each purporting to be HTML 5 with a
> survival of the fittest determining which one advances, I'm OK with that.
>  Better would be more documents with clear divisions of labor. Best would be
> cooperation.
> No, I am not singling out any one individual as not-being cooperative, there
> is something that everybody needs to work on.  That includes me. That
> includes you.  That includes Ian.  That includes Chris Wilson, an innocent
> victim in this particular discussion, just one that I happen to think would
> be fun to pick on at this particular point in time.
> I am totally sympathetic to the notion that the case has not yet been made
> for a summary attribute.  What I have heard to date leads me to believe that
> the long term goal is to replace this attribute.  Meanwhile those that
> advocate its "reinstatement" are "disinclined to reinvent this particular
> wheel at this particular time."[2]
> A much more tenable position would be for somebody to step forward and do
> this work, and to argue that the summary attribute be listed in section 12.3
> as vestigial markup.  If that work were done, I personally doubt that a vote
> would be necessary, but if it came to that, I would vote for it.  At the
> present time, I personally would vote against anything that simply suggested
> that summary be "reinstated" unless I felt that those advocating such had a
> firm conviction such an approach was the right long term solution.
> Meanwhile, Shelley has stepped forward and volunteered to edit both this
> section and the section on semantic metadata.  Mike Smith has indicated[3]
> that he is ready to set her up with write access to the document repository
> to the group.
>  - - -
> In summary, the path I suggest is to find somebody who is willing to be an
> editor and make your case.  That could be Ian.  That could be Shelley.  That
> could be you.  If we end up with multiple competing documents at the time we
> wish to enter Last Call, the document with the greatest amount of consensus
> will be the one that advances.
> If any of this is in any way unclear, please let me know.
> - Sam Ruby
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2009Jun/0120.html
> [2] http://www.mail-archive.com/www-archive@w3.org/msg02575.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0654.html

with regards

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

www.paciellogroup.com | www.wat-c.org
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2009 14:06:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:40 UTC