E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 10:06AM
Subject: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
No previous message | Next message →

Hi y'all,

I just saw Ian Hicksons post on the WHATWG Blog where the HTML 5
"technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document
that defines the technology as it evolves".

What this move effectively means is that HTML (5) will be implemented in
a piecemeal manner, with vendors (browser manufacturers/AT makers etc)
cherry picking the parts that they want. It could be argued that this is
the way it _already_ is however as a specification isn't a movable feast
there is more chance for consistency and stability. This current move by
the WHATWG, will mean that discussions that have been going on about how
best to implement accessibility features in HTML 5 could well become
redundant, or unfinished or maybe never even implemented at all.

What is implemented will be dependent on where the "living
specification" is at any point in time. If I am flying in a plane, I
don't want to know the engineers were still not in agreement about how
to design the engines after the plane has taken off.

I think this will mean piecemeal implementation by vendors, with the
caveat that "the spec is in flux so we can only implement the most
stable parts of it" which is a perfect get out clause for a poor user
experience.

This is a disappointing move, and a retrograde step that could well make
the fine tuning of important accessibility aspects of HTML (5) even harder.

My 2 cents*

Josh

[1] http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
* Apologies for cross posting

NCBI: Celebrating 80 Years

********************************************************************
National Council for the Blind of Ireland (NCBI) is a company
limited by guarantee (registered in Ireland No. 26293) .
Our registered office is at Whitworth Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
NCBI is also a registered Charity (chy4626).

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However,
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 10:06AM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | Next message →

On 24/01/2011 09:24, Joshue O Connor wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> I just saw Ian Hicksons post on the WHATWG Blog where the HTML 5
> "technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document
> that defines the technology as it evolves".
>
> What this move effectively means is that HTML (5) will be implemented in
> a piecemeal manner, with vendors (browser manufacturers/AT makers etc)
> cherry picking the parts that they want. It could be argued that this is
> the way it _already_ is however as a specification isn't a movable feast
> there is more chance for consistency and stability. This current move by
> the WHATWG, will mean that discussions that have been going on about how
> best to implement accessibility features in HTML 5 could well become
> redundant, or unfinished or maybe never even implemented at all.

Though I understand your concern, I think it's not going to be worse
than the current situation. Look at HTML 4.01 ... stable for absolute
ages, and there's still AT that doesn't handle some fairly common
constructs in any sensible way.

And yes, this simply reflects what's already been happening re
cherry-picking. The only solution, from my point of view, is that the
accessibility community must keep up the same pace as those WHATWG
contributors that suggest/add new features - a change of process from
the W3C model, for sure.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

From: Joshue O Connor
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 10:06AM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | Next message →

On 24/01/2011 09:36, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 24/01/2011 09:24, Joshue O Connor wrote:
>> Hi y'all,
>>
>> I just saw Ian Hicksons post on the WHATWG Blog where the HTML 5
>> "technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document
>> that defines the technology as it evolves".

> Though I understand your concern, I think it's not going to be worse
> than the current situation. Look at HTML 4.01 ... stable for absolute
> ages, and there's still AT that doesn't handle some fairly common
> constructs in any sensible way.

Indeed, but that was at a time when HTML was _the_ major technology
(rather like when we only had a handful of TV channels, and now there
are a plethora) sans tons of the non-HTML like APIs like Web Workers
etc. It was simpler then, and as you rightly say large parts of it were
not implemented by AT etc. What I am saying now is the new HTML 5 spec
is *huge* and this new move will make things worse IMO.

> And yes, this simply reflects what's already been happening re
> cherry-picking. The only solution, from my point of view, is that the
> accessibility community must keep up the same pace as those WHATWG
> contributors that suggest/add new features - a change of process from
> the W3C model, for sure.

Yes, I think we overall need a change of approach for sure. However, Its
rather hard to provide suitable metrics for qualitative processes but
that's a discussion for another day.., Yes the WHATWG has a totally
different approach to the W3C, and yes they will say that it's open (to
anyone with an IRC client and tons of spare time, that ain't me).

What is bizarre, is that from an a11y perspective, there are *lots* of
great new things in HTML 5 that will certainly improve a11y if
implemented correctly but semantically we have gone from a famine to a
feast and the spec *must* be stable in order to provide guidance to vendors.

Finally, vendors won't go near the dodgy parts of the spec (issues in
flux) at all, it's just too risky, costly etc. It seem to me that this
is circumventing the spec process in order to ship. There, I said it.

Cheers

Josh

NCBI: Celebrating 80 Years

********************************************************************
National Council for the Blind of Ireland (NCBI) is a company
limited by guarantee (registered in Ireland No. 26293) .
Our registered office is at Whitworth Road, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.
NCBI is also a registered Charity (chy4626).

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments
is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of
the content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify
the sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to
delete it and any attachments from your system.

NCBI endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However,
it cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of NCBI


********************************************************************

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 10:07AM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Joshue O Connor < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Hi y'all,
>
> I just saw Ian Hicksons post on the WHATWG Blog where the HTML 5
> "technology is not versioned and instead we just have a living document
> that defines the technology as it evolves".

As a bit of a background to this for those that have not been following this...

Last week the W3C announced a logo for HTML5
(http://www.w3.org/html/logo/). I think it is generally well designed
and a nice way to brand HTML5 stuff, if a bit gimmicky. But the W3C
also muddied the waters with the logo by suggesting that HTML5
includes CSS3 and loads of other nifty technologies that aren't really
HTML5 at all. There was a bit of an outcry and the W3C backtracked a
bit (http://www.w3.org/html/logo/faq.html#css3).

In the meantime, the WHATWG, perhaps a bit reactionary to the W3C
convolution of "HTML5", announced that they are dropping the "5" to
focus less on iterations and snapshots of an HTML specification, but
more on a continually evolving "living spec". The open WHATWG has
talked about this change for some time. And they essentially function
this way anyway. They are continually innovating and changing the
spec, and browser vendors are implementing this new stuff in generally
haphazard ways all the time. Dropping the "5" won't really change what
the WHATWG and browser vendors do in this regard.

I generally like this change for many reasons. So long as the W3C
continues to capture snapshot versioned iterations of HTML (the first
of which will be HTML5), this establishes a formalized standard
(different than the evolving specification) to which authors and
browser vendors can solidly develop. This change can actually make it
much easier for the W3C to do this because the W3C and the WHATWG
won't need to harmonize on versions. The WHATWG will do their thing
and the W3C will encapsulate the solid and well-adopted portions of
HTML into (hopefully) regular versions.

> What this move effectively means is that HTML (5) will be implemented in
> a piecemeal manner, with vendors (browser manufacturers/AT makers etc)
> cherry picking the parts that they want.

Very true, at least for the innovative parts of HTML. It's always
worked this way. But if the W3C versions the important and stable
pieces into regular standards, it also means that we can have more
consistent and stable implementations of what really matters. Of
course this will work best if the W3C process occurs somewhat faster
than it's typical glacier pace. Also absolutely critical to all of
this is the fact that the W3C's patent process helps protect the
standard. There is no such protection in the WHATWG world.

As Patrick notes, if you consider the current state of browser and
especially assistive technology support for HTML 4, I don't think this
change could make things any worse. Instead, we have brilliant minds
pushing innovation and doing some very cool things with accessibility
at the WHATWG. The W3C process and their Accessibility Task Force are
working hard to ensure solid accessibility in their specifications.
Browser vendors are involved in both processes to varying degrees.

Regarding accessibility, it is true that accessibility implementations
in HTML, in browsers, and AT will lag likely behind the WHATWG spec.
But this is exactly what is happening now. Keeping the "5" won't
change this. What will change this, however, is us contributing to the
WHATWG 'living standard' and ensuring that the W3C standards have
solid accessibility included. Perhaps more important is each of us
pressuring browser and AT developers to actually implement
accessibility early and correctly.

Jared Smith
WebAIM

From: Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 11:09AM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | Next message →

>from an a11y perspective, there are *lots* of great
>new things in HTML 5 that will certainly improve a11y
>if implemented correctly
Could you please list some of these great things?

Regards,
-Vlad

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 11:27AM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | Next message →

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Vlad Alexander
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>from an a11y perspective, there are *lots* of great
>>new things in HTML 5 that will certainly improve a11y
>>if implemented correctly
> Could you please list some of these great things?

So that you can rebut me with all of its shortcoming? No thanks.
You've already done so several times.

We've gone the rounds on this before. If unhappy with accessibility in
HTML5, one can choose to get involved and make it better. Or one can,
as you have, disengage, critique from the sidelines, and lambast the
process:

- http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/html5-shortcomings/
- http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/offer-to-save-longdesc/
- http://rebuildingtheweb.com/en/45-pages-on-writing-alt/

That's the point of my comments - a "5" at the end won't help
accessibility. Constructive participation from people will. Fighting
amongst ourselves does nothing for accessibility. I choose to be
constructive.

Jared

From: Vlad Alexander (XStandard)
Date: Mon, Jan 24 2011 12:24PM
Subject: Re: HTML 5 (sic) and A11y
← Previous message | No next message

>Fighting amongst ourselves does nothing for accessibility.
Why can't we as a community come up with a list of HTML5 features that will significantly advance Web accessibility and have this list stand up to scrutiny?

Regards,
-Vlad