On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:48 PM, James Teh <j...@mozilla.com> wrote: > TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly) > agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as > the response goes.
Thanks Jamie. I very much appreciate your thoroughness. The additional details you provided below can help us with our charter response. > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik <tan...@cs.stanford.edu> > wrote: >> >> > The only thing worth >> > noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that >> > may >> > well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be >> > "blocking >> > progress" on this front. >> >> If there were only two browser vendors (including Mozilla) then yes >> your statement would be correct. >> >> However, we have (at least) four major browser vendors, and thus it is >> incorrect to assert that Mozilla alone could be "blocking progress" >> when any 2 of the other 3 browser vendors could implement something >> and have it exit CR. > > That's fair. I suppose there's some (now irrelevant) historical context > here: it used to be that Mozilla championed this stuff and drove others to > push accessibility forward. At present, that is not the case, and I'm > concerned it'll now be very hard to make much progress in accessibility. > Still, while that's kind of sad, I take your point that this is irrelevant > to the requirements of the charter. Got it. Even if we (Mozilla) are delayed with implementation, we can still champion this stuff. We can still nominate someone to participate in the WG with subject matter expertise to help guide what we think will be more implementable features. >> > We want "limited resources" to drive better >> > standards, yet with our resources in accessibility as limited as they >> > are at >> > this point, it's entirely likely we won't get around to implementing new >> > ARIA stuff for years. >> >> That may well be. If that is your assessment, we should add that to >> our Charter response and be quite upfront that we are unlikely to >> implement new ARIA stuff for (a few?) years, and perhaps ask >> (non-F.O.) for the WG to be postponed accordingly. > > Honestly, there is a lot of uncertainty at this point; I certainly couldn't > give any "formal" statement concerning what we might or might not implement. > FWIW, I believe Mozilla *should* implement this stuff, but that all depends > on me convincing leadership that we should provide more resources for > accessibility. :) Again, irrelevant to our charter response. Perhaps we can write a comment in support of developing new ARIA features, but admit we cannot commit to helping implement or even prototype them to prove their viability and efficacy. >> In addition per your note about "still haven't implemented parts of >> ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2.", if you know of any features in those >> specs which *no browser implements* we should call those out, and ask >> that the Charter explicitly dictate dropping them in the next version >> of ARIA for failure to get uptake. > > I'd say there's at least one implementation (probably two) of most ARIA 1.1 > stuff. I'm not sure about ARIA 1.2; I haven't even had a chance to look at > it yet. We could request a deliverable requirement of 100% testing and interop (2+ implementations) of ARIA 1.2 features for the next version of ARIA. dbaron, is this thread sufficient to write-up a response? Our response is due tomorrow (Friday 7/27) right? Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
