Steven Faulkner wrote:
sam wrote:
I am particularly puzzled by the stance "we don't make formal replies to
individuals" and "in particular HTML WG editors...are encouraged to make
use of >[WAI XTECH Mailing List and HTML WG Teleconferences]".
I think you are conflating messages here, the one laura sent and you
quoted from has no official connection or endorsement with any WAI group.
Your out of context quotation of a reply by Janina to Ian appears to be
on the subject of the protocols for inter working group group
communication on a formal level. Something which i do not understand,
but thought that both you and Janina would being chairs and all.
best regards
Stevef
2009/7/19 Sam Ruby <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009, Laura Carlson wrote:
To that end, we propose that the HTML working group adopt
the following statement as an official procedure and publish
it in HTML working group Web space.
Procedure to Promote Progress With Accessibility Issues in HTML5
Procedure Overview:
The HTML WG will look to the W3C WAI groups for guidance,
listen to their advice, and collaborate with them to reach
mutually agreeable accessibility solutions. Furthermore,
collaboration will be promoted in a pro-active manner, i.e.,
whenever possible, design features known or foreseen to have
an impact on accessibility will be explored and discussed
with the Protocols and Formats Working Group (PFWG) [2]
prior to decisions in order to ensure mutually beneficial
resolution of issues.
Laura, in the interests of the collaboration you espouse, could
you reply to the e-mail I wrote to you last month?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0669.html
Collaboration Framework:
1. Approach issues on the basis of the shared goal of making
HTML 5
the best solution for everyone, including people with
disabilities.
This should mean working for accessibility as a whole, not
working for specific features. For example, in the context of
tables, it should mean focusing on making tables accessible, not
focusing on the summary="" attribute to the exclusion of
discussion of other solutions. (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.)
Can we get a commitment from members of the WAI to approach
issues on the basis of the shared goal of making HTML 5 the best
solution for everyone, including people with disabilities and
people without disabilities?
2. Work from concrete issues as to what in HTML 5 needs to
be improved by asking PFWG to clearly identify accessibility
functional requirements and provide rationale.
I most recently tried to approach the WAI on the topic of <canvas>:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2009Jun/0093.html
I've yet to receive any concrete functional requirements
suggestions for changes to the specification on this topic from
the WAI (although I have received several suggestions from
members of the HTMLWG who are not members of the WAI). I am
still hopeful that the WAI will clearly identify accessibility
functional requirements and provide rationale. Is there any
chance the WAI could provide an ETA for such advice on this topic?
3. Listen to their input, ask for clarification, and work
together to
devise solutions to satisfy accessibility requirements.
I have asked for clarifications, for example in June, regarding
tables:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0173.html
I received an official reply to the effect that my questions
were not welcome because they were not from a group:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0260.html
...and my reply to that, asking about which groups would qualify
to get a reply, received no replies at all:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0262.html
4. Ask PFWG if proposed solutions meet accessibility
requirements.
* If they say no, ask what functionality is still needed and
continue the collaboration.
As noted above, I did this with <canvas>, and received no
concrete replies. (I received many thanks, but no technical
replies.)
I look forward to further collaborations with the WAI, and hope
that concrete advice such as the advice you suggest that we ask
for will be forthcoming.
+1 to what Ian said. Continuing where Ian left off:
Laura Carlson wrote:
* If they say no, ask what functionality is still needed and
continue the collaboration.
* If they say yes, incorporate text for the mutually agreed upon
solution into the specification.
These options are available to every member of the HTML Working
Group. Many members of WAI are members of the HTML Working Group.
Those that are not currently members but are interested in
exercising the above options are also encouraged to join.
Collaboration Tools:
Tools to facilitate the procedure include but are not limited to:
* WAI XTECH Mailing List [3]
* PF's Caucus on HTML Issues Weekly Teleconference [4]
* Joint Task Forces/Ad Hoc Groups
* Joint Sessions at Face-to-Face Meetings
* HTML WG Teleconferences [5]
* W3C ESW Wiki [6]
* Tracker [7]
All of these exist as possibilities and many are actively being used.
All interested parties, in particular HTML WG editors, are
encouraged
to make use of these collaboration tools and opportunities.
I am particularly puzzled by the stance "we don't make formal
replies to individuals" and "in particular HTML WG editors...are
encouraged to make use of [WAI XTECH Mailing List and HTML WG
Teleconferences]".
Respectfully,
Laura L. Carlson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
Bruce Lawson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Opera Software (good standing)
Catherine Roy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
Debi Orton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
Gez Lemon <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Jason White <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
John Foliot <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
Leif Halvard Silli <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
(public) Invited expert (good standing)
Robert J Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Steve Faulkner <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
W3C Invited Experts (good standing)
In a word, I am disappointed by this proposal. In addition to the
two things Ian is waiting on, I am waiting on text for a vote on the
summary issue to be made available for a public review.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#wai
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/participation.html#Subscribin
[4] http://esw.w3.org/topic/PF/XTech/HTML5/Caucus
[5] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/Teleconferences
[6] http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML
[7] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker
A copy of this proposal is also in the ESW Wiki at:
http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/AccessibilityIssueProcedure
--
Laura L. Carlson
- Sam Ruby
--
with regards
Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG Europe
Director - Web Accessibility Tools Consortium
www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com> | www.wat-c.org
<http://www.wat-c.org>
Web Accessibility Toolbar -
http://www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html
