W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > August 2006

RE: Accessibility Features of SVG was Re: should element with focus be within client window?

From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:35:49 -0400
To: "'Jonathan Chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20060826223555.54B2B4B958@postalmail-a3.dreamhost.com>

Hi, Jonathan-

Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
| my error, oops.

An understandable oversight.

| things are a little busy here and I read your response
| "I'll reply inline..."
| however you then didn't reply to a direct question
| "should element with focus be within client window?"
| so I took your response to mean that you would reply in the future,  
| which you appeared not to have done....

Yeah, I chose to answer that whole series of related questions in one
paragraph... sorry it wasn't more immediately obvious.

| thanks for your detailed response.

You're quite welcome.

| A few fundamental problem with the w3c process include
| the failure to engage end users, 

Do you have concrete suggestions for how you think W3C can address this?

| the reliance on corporate funding,  

This has been the buzz on the Web circuit of W3C detractors, but I don't see
how an organization can operate without funding.  The substantive question
is whether their reliance on corporate funding is somehow conflcting with
their functionality as a standards body, and I would need to see clear proof
that that is significantly or frequently the case.

| the significant jargon hurdle,  

I don't think that there is a way to remove technical language from
specifications, but I do think that the creation of explanatory documents,
primers and the like, would help in both this and in your first point.

| and indeed the very long delays between publication and product.  

Over which the W3C has very little control.  Arguably, if specification
authors worked more closely with implementors (as the SVG WG has with the
SVGT1.2 spec... most of it is already implemented by mobile vendors), then
the time from specification to market would be decreased.  I think that is
why 2 independent implementations of every feature are required, in addition
to providing proof of implementability.

| A simple case being the "Accessibility Features of SVG"
| http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG-access/
| this document can hardly have been considered complete on  
| publication, however six years later there is little if any evidence  
| of intention to revise, update or supercede. Though perhaps this is  
| off-topic for the subject header :-)

I'm going to break this off into its own dedicated thread.

Received on Saturday, 26 August 2006 22:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:14 UTC