molly.com
Wednesday 15 August 2007
Web Standards Situation Solutions
As the past few days of discussion surrounding the concerns I’ve publicly raised regarding the current state of standards affairs, I’ve been on an emotional roller coaster reading arguments between people I respect and love, seeing once strong voices putting their heads in the ground and pretending everything is just fine even if glacially slow; and feeling overwhelmed at the complacency, frustration and despondency reigning supreme instead of the movement and joy that once filled the Web.
I’m a person of action as well as words. So when members of the WHAT WG and the W3C asked me to help clarify the concerns I feel, I made a point of figuring out how to do just that. I dropped by the WHAT WG IRC chat and talked with members there. Within a few minutes we came up with a few action items that people agreed would be helpful.
De-Mystifying and Clarifying HTML5
The first concern is to answer the question “Why HTML 5?” in a way that is as clear as possible and will make sense to the largest group of people as possible. This means no spec-speak in the analysis. The second concern is to highlight for the broader community just where the “hot topic” problems are, and begin honing in on those realistically, looking at how we can all come to mutual agreement. And when I say we, I mean WE. Remember that the WHAT WG and HTML 5 WG are open to your participation.
Ian Hickson has agreed to go through the current spec and red mark the unresolved issues and hot topics. A group of folks including myself have committed to taking those and providing them via a public forum (probably the WHAT WG blog, or possibly on W3C, or both) bullet pointing in clear terminology the rationale, outstanding issues and encouraging positive discourse about those issues.
Solving the Human Problem
As Jeremy Keith pointed out in a recent heart-moving post, it’s a pretty awful thing to see people who ultimately share common goals and even friendship fight with each other. Perhaps this is why I’ve been so upset, I’m very sensitive when it comes to relationships and clearly things haven’t been paradise for and between many of my colleagues lately.
In the IRC conversation (you can find resources and transcripts via the WHAT WG landing page) we discussed the value of face to face meetups. Logistically, this is a very difficult thing to achieve since we are a truly worldwide group, many people are students or don’t have budget from their companies to travel and so forth.
So one course of action we discussed was to have a simultaneous meetup in a number of cities across the globe where all interested parties get together F2F with the goal of open discourse over hot topics related to the specs. The value of this exercise would allow people to get together and meet their colleagues. Most would agree that F2F meetups can help mitigate some of the anger that is all too readily expressed in the online environments.
Lemons to Lemonade
Hopefully these planned actions will help clarify and calm some of the frustration, as well as bring a broader understanding of the real issues to everyone, myself included.
Is my approach passionate? You bet, and if you know me, it’s clear that the day that passion goes away I know I will have ceased to be effective in any way in this industry and I will leave it. But that day isn’t today. It’s a warm summer evening in Redmond, Washington, and I’m going to take some fresh lemons and make lemonade.
Anybody want a glass?
Filed under: professional, policies, standards, software, web design and development, WaSP, society, w3c, creativity, browsers, accessibility, javascript, whatwg, community
Posted by: Molly | 10:10 pm |
August 15th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
The human factor is the monkey-wrench in many situations that could easily be discussed were there no egos involved. People who are passionate about an issue or cause often define their self-worth or self-image based in whole or in part on their success in said cause.
This has the dual effect of making perceived assaults on this cause seem all too personal. Given that one can read body language, facial expression, and tone of voice in a face to face meeting, many of these “personal” roadblocks can be avoided or smoothed over by alert individuals with a sincere concern for the other parties.
In other words, human contact can say so much more than simple words typed onto a screen, especially where feelings are involved. Even if you don’t all agree, you’ll at least understand one another better.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Hey Molly,
I’d love to discuss the possibility of the Web Standards Group participating in (if not helping to facilitate) some of the F2F meetups you mentioned. We are definately on the ground here in Australia with 1600 members and over 3000 outside Australia.
Px
August 16th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Proposed in June 2007.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2007Jun/0793
Maybe to premature at the time.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Yeah, I’ll have a glass of that please!
Good follow-up post Molly. I’ll take a closer look at the points on the WhatWG site later today when I’ve got a moment. It’s good to see you getting involved in all this (as much as you can do - considering how your time is already busy with other work too).
If everyone concerned responds quickly enough to this, then I certainly see the possibility of the current problems being resolved…it’s going to be a team effort though.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for agreeing to develop a non-geek speak analysis. Some out here have the mind of an eleven year old [the reference made to myself].
The discord — still contend that time has arrived for salaried staff and the necessity of income/funding alternatives, operational and management changes.
Lemonade?? Got any ethyl alcohol to go with that? Works great for moving glaciers, too. Break out the luge.
Passion and heart? A couple of the most valuable intangibles in humanity.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:55 am
Well I can’t speak for anyone else, but my loss of passion stems from way beyond the web - it’s life in general. I used to be able to look to my work to buzz me up, but it doesn’t anymore, it just pisses me off. If my life was more satisfying, I’d be able to find my passion for work again; as it is, I find it almost impossible to give a shit.
Sorry to be so negative, it’s just how I feel.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:20 am
For those looking for the IRC log, it’s here. If you look earlier, it’s clear that we too misunderstood Molly.
There’s one thing I think needs to be said about the imminent FPWD: if there’s something in HTML 4.01 but not in the HTML 5 FWPD, it doesn’t mean it won’t be in the final REC. A vocal group of accessibility experts have been criticising the current lack of some accessibility features in HTML 5.
I think I can safely say speaking for the entire WG that we do care about the future of the web, we do care about it being universally accessible, and we do want to make the web better than it is today.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:53 am
I’d be happy to help coordinate some type of meetup in the Washington DC/East Coast USA area. I think getting the discussion going would be great and lend itself to some great positive participation.
Could WaSP play a role in helping to educate people on the issues within HTML 5?
August 16th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Molly
You said: “Remember that the WHAT WG and HTML 5 WG are open to your participation.”
Can you please tell me how? I’ve gone to the W3C site and got bogged down in all the requirements for membership. I’ve heard that membership is not required to participate, but have never figured out how.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am
@Bob Simonette: HTML WG and WHAT WG.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Let’s see how open the HTML5 folks are to debate on the fundamental principles of HTML5. I suspect those are set in stone and this who exercise is to convince us why they are right and we are wrong.
August 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
[…] Zeldman är cool och analyserar den synbarliga turbulens som frodats den senaste tiden på ett lysande sätt i inlägget “What crisis?” One day, people from nice homes may forsake XHTML for HTML 5, making us wonder what that XHTML pony ride was all about anyway. Or not. If HTML 5 bombs, we’re not so badly off with the markup specifications we have. Remember this. It may help you sleep at night. If HTML, CSS, or accessibility go seriously astray (and depending on who you ask, at least two of these are in trouble), we will still be able to use HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, CSS1 and 2.1, ECMAScript, the DOM, and WCAG 1.0 (with our without reference to the samurai errata) when Britney has grandkids. […]
August 16th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I agree that pulling the purely tech talk out of some of these discussions is important. Its very hard to continue any conversation - and the frustration shows - if you run into someone who can quote perfect chapter and verse of specification X. Its great that they know that C&H but the problem comes with communication in that conversation - its a two way street. So naturally the miscommunication comes to a head with frustrated flaming etc…
(I am also suspicious sometimes whether someone like that just made something up or gave me an interpretation and I’m too dumb to pick it up lol)
Seriously, why HTML 5? I long ago tuned out of that conversation with all the angst associated with it. Like a lot of people no doubt. I mean in simple laymans terms it would be interesting to hear some of the justifications for inclusions / exclusions which otherwise may be perceived as being driven by factions and politicing. I may be wrong but that’s my general perception and why I haven’t read anything about this subject - avoided it like the plague - for quite some time. When its a working spec to worry about I’ll bring the grief into my life, but at the moment I just see a free for all punch up.
Am I wrong to have that impression? I think to dispel that impression among people like me then open and clear non-technical conversation is a must.
Good luck with this Molly and I hope improvements happen.
August 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
@Peter: Hella yes, this is a huge opportunity for the WSG. I’d love to see WaSP do something too, but hey, let’s move it forward.
@brothercake: As you know, I truly empathize having been to that bottom both personally and work burnout wise. Hang in there, enjoy your friends, and if there’s only unhappiness in the work, then maybe a new way of working is in order.
@Steven: You just made my point so very clear with these words: “Am I wrong to have that impression? I think to dispel that impression among people like me then open and clear non-technical conversation is a must.”
You are not wrong to have any impression. I feel this is a long-standing gap between spec bodies and the workaday world. It’s a gap I’ve worked to bridge, and that remains a primary goal I have. Thank you for the support.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Wow. I’ve read the entire 73-comment post, and as many of the supporting posts as I could manage, of “Dear W3C…” (I was surprised no one responded to “Pangloss”; I’d have thought such levity to be worth a chuckle or two. No: I have no idea who Pangloss is; maybe Mr. Voltaire could provide the answer? Maybe it’s best… No, I’ll not go there!
) I’ve got a few observations that will no doubt incense some, annoy others and generally tick off whomever is left. But, being a bit brazen in my approach to life, love and all that I find important: here goes.
I have to say that I’ve seen arguments over Christianity that were more civil. Heck, I was accorded more respect by Christian Fundamentalists asking me about my atheism than I saw in some of those posts. One thing to remember: there’s a person at the other end of that wire. A little empathy or support wouldn’t hurt you, and might advance your cause. (Excuse me if I’m lecturing.) You don’t have to check your ego at the door, but you would be wise to remember that others have equally sized ones.
I’m an “outsider”. I freely admit that - and considering some of the veiled invective I read, am happy to stay that way. I do think an important point was missed, although it was alluded to a time or two: who sets the standards?
I saw some pleas to Mr Berners Lee toward the end of that little tome of comments; the writers make an assumption that Mr. Berners Lee wants to lead, and (no inference on Mr. Berners Lee himself) is capable of leading such an effort. It’s frequently noted by venture capitalists that the inventor is not usually the best person to run the company once it’s successful. That needs a different way of thinking: an MBA, for instance. Mr. Berners Lee invented the web, and obviously has some strong ideas about its direction. But it’s not his, anymore. He can influence, but he’s certainly no longer in a position to dictate.
And I think that gets to the heart of this little problem: who’s running the show? Did anyone notice that the actors are on stage?
The W3C, et al, are on stage. Although the evidence does point to them thinking the curtain hasn’t risen, many in the audience don’t like the play. Heck, they’re demanding refunds! But blaming the actors isn’t any good when they don’t have a script, or each has a different, randomly selected, script. You need to blame the producer.
Is the process to blame for the inaction, the obtuseness of some, and the generation of “those who (somehow) understand it all”? YES.
Some might say the process is democratic: I’d argue that it’s about as effective as Athenian democracy was in the Peloponnesian War. (With less dire results, to be sure!) When you appoint everyone as Ambassador, you get chaos, endless discussion and a singular lack of progress, let alone results.
I might add you’ll also get endless status reports indicating how much progress hasn’t been made, and oh aren’t we working hard and being clever?
Don’t blame the people, people. (Sorry, couldn’t resist.) Examine the process. It’s a fallacy that it works: CSS3 is a fiction, I’ve never heard of HTML5, and I’m durned sure that the last web standard I met got reported to the cops.
Let me bore you with a story: an old boss of mine told me to let my staff figure out the problems. I got a lot of heartache, some brilliant solutions, some awful ones, a bottle of Single Malt and a very strong desire to never see Wall St IT again. I also got a lecture from the CIO - a very wise man - who told me that undirected effort is precisely that: undirected. It reminded me of the maxim that you can’t get where you’re going when you don’t know where you’re headed.
(I was never what you’d call “good” at management.)
I haven’t seen a single thing that describes a problem to be solved, the resolution to a long-standing issue, or the simple point that maybe the entire process of deciding these standards needs to be rethought. What is the purpose of the new standards? To keep the committee busy? Sure seems that way.
A clear road map would help. Anyone want to produce one?
One fundamental problem - and I’m loath to mention it - is that “everyone” gets a vote. I’ll guarantee stalemate; and, unlike Florida, there’s no Supreme Court to adjudicate. The entire process is designed to produce consensus, and when a system gets beyond its initial birth pangs, consensus becomes a matter of politics. And that’s no way to treat a standard.
Of course, I’ll expect that if anyone takes up the reins of this problem, they’ll end up in exactly the same place they are now. Principally because no one has described a vision, a goal or even a common place to buy the coffee. (If they have, my apologies. I must have blinked.)
The process appears to be broken. Maybe it’s time to go get a new one?
Carolyn Ann
August 17th, 2007 at 1:03 am
Oh: the reference to Pangloss was just a bit of literary fun. “Candide” happens to be one of my favorite plays, and the writer of that comment captured Dr. Pangloss’s “best of all possible worlds” philosophy so perfectly! My admiration goes to whomever produced that epistle.
Just remembering that my ego got left at the door of life, a long time ago.
Carolyn Ann
August 17th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Oh and the fastest way for spec-experts to get someone like me to leave the conversation is to type the word idiot in multiple parts of their reply to me… i might be misguided at times but i am far from an idiot lol… not understanding a technicality isn’t tolerated in some circles. So I’ve found.
It kind of reminds me of WCAG 2 in a way. Both these technologies need the generic me ‘the developer’ to both understand (context, why, how) as well as to adopt in practice their spec in my work. Which is funny because often the conversation is such that I am left to feel an irrelevance. So for example I can’t be bothered with WCAG 2 - too long, too complicated, too ambiguous (give me something I can read on Saturday afternoon, gives me good foundation for actual work on monday - something I understand in laymans terms and can implement). That’s where the WCAG Sumarai errata wins hands down.
Similarly with HTML 5. First, why do I need it? Next, if i need it, how can i implement it when the time comes (an easy transition path, intuitively written spec, common sense in the trenches aspects to it all)… these technologies, or the groups responsible, forget they need to be marketing to me - to US - because in the end if we ignore whatever they do then its just all a waste of time. We make spec and you will come isn’t the paradigm of the new millenium molly, just as we make and customers will come is no longer the marketing paradigm for commerce. The paradigm in marketing terms is about ‘relationships’ nowdays… anyway that is a rant of its own I guess.
Yes I do get what you’re saying here. And all I can say to the elite minority who think we the developers are just peripheral to the conversation is ‘come speak when you want it implemented by us in the workplace’. I’ll shut up now as I must sound a bit bitter. I’m not, just disappointed from so many forums where these type of people have berated me down for asking normal level questions to glean understanding…
Good luck with your bridge building Molly. It will be a hard road.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:10 am
Mr Clarke, it’s 5AM in southern New Jersey, and I’ve just finished the “Manifesto” over on the Web Standards website (if I were less of an idiot, I’d know how to do links in these comments). After reading that particular construction that vaguely references the English language, I’m forced to conclude that I either need to get out more, or consider my bedtime reading. (”Soul of a tree”, George Nakashima).
My point being: if someone is audacious enough to use the term “idiot” in such a conversation, it’s not something to be considered as derisory. It simply indicates the lack of understanding, and empathy, of the caller to the callee.
Having been called far worse than “idiot”, I can assure you that no harm will come from assuming the mantle, and bearing a proud badge that says “I’m an idiot”. It proves to the world that you may be, but it proves to yourself that you need the Hubble Telescope to identify the trivial and inconsequential “wanna-be” insults. Intelligence comes from within; insults are easy and disposable. All the caller proves is their own malevolence, lack of empathy and general immaturity in resorting to such trivial wanna-be insults.
Carolyn Ann
August 17th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Oops. My apologies, Mr. Clark: I spelled your name wrong. Sorry!
Carolyn Ann
August 17th, 2007 at 2:52 am
I knew I shouldn’t look at work stuff while on my holidays; it was one of the things that was depressing me before I left for Cambodia.
The depressing thing has been the way everything’s been going backwards. Five years ago I published a book for web professionals to convince them of accessibility. Since that time we’ve seen great strides.
Five years later, I’m exhausted from fighting that fight - this time, with HTML 5 and the microformats community. If they don’t get it now, they never will.
I’m using my holiday to chill out and work out whether I still have enough energy to be overwhelmed by mailing lists and shouted down by those who can’t admit they made an honest mistake. Actually, whether I still want to be in the industry at all. Like I said, if they don’t get it now, they never will.
Anyway, the sun will set soon and I can see Angkor Wat from the terrace of my hotel. So I’m going to have a beer and work up courage to donate some blood to the Siem Reap Children’s Hospital - there’s been an outbreak of heammoragic fever here and they’re crying out for blood.
I hate needles but can probably do far more good that way than endlessly argue about screenreaders, table headers and abbreviations in microformats.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:40 am
ha ha - Mr Clarke suits me fine
i’m not sure if i’m supposed to be ego driven or wear the same suit as anyone though. I work in the industry, I teach web design to graphic design / multimedia students, and I’m at the end of a Bachelor of Computing at the University of Tasmania. I also look like moving into project management in the near future in a large organisation. My point being that this is a relevant conversation to my livelihood and how I actually do my work - or lets say how i will do my work in five years time. I’m too busy to put up with someone from any list, forum or working group for example sending me a personal email about their opinion of my intelligence lol… but that’s just me. As a long term blogger on various URLs over the last four years I have had more than enough flames to greet me first thing in the morning.
I’m not sure I entirely agree with your article but then everyone’s got a right to their own opinion I guess. Its not wrong in any way but I come from a different perspective - in some ways I also agree with you. I think a lot of this is driven by ego (see I probably didn’t understand your article lol entirely at this hour of night) and does need clarification. Does that mean web standards is belly up? Nope. It is and will always be better to make sites using separation of content from presentation and behaviour! It always will be better to build high quality products which are usable and accessible - I say that in the reference to universal accessibility (which technically does include compromise at times and definately includes disabled people). It will always be better to think of graceful degradation and progressive enhancement during development, and yes JavaScript should be unobtrusive. And it always will be a better business decision for any organisation to choose this methodology to develop their web solutions - technically and financially.
If there is a good case anyone can make about why tables for layout, inaccessibility of any ilk, or using font tags is a good way to do things I’d be very interested to listen… I really would. Its not just a rhetorical fan mail argument as to why these are awful practices.
So web standards isn’t in trouble. What is in trouble is the potential fragmenting of ideas into several deviations. Microformats for example may be a great idea but when it comes to doing something that would otherwise be called ‘bad practise’ then there is an issue of certain personalities pushing their own cart at the expense of someone else. Only time will tell the direction things go there.
If web standards were in trouble we’d be pulling out old copies of FrontPage and drag and dropping tables galore, zipping out our shim gifs and selling new websites with old practices lol… hey I’d even make a new habit of being an Internet Explorer 6 only developer(tongue in cheek there)…
I’m not exactly sure where we agree or disagree on this comment though. I think you have some very valid opinions. And one of the key issues in this whole conversation is about ‘perceptions’. For all I know HTML 5 is the bee’s knees best ever thing of all time. But how would I know that? Or WCAG 2? While it might be fine to fling names around it isn’t a constructive way to communicate is all I’m saying. And specs need to be understandable to the layman to be adopted en masse.
Anyway now its late here in Tasmania after a long day at work. I hope you got to sleep before the dawn Carolyn Ann. It was an interesting read. Goodnight all
August 17th, 2007 at 5:23 am
As Mr. Sneddon said: “There’s one thing I think needs to be said about the imminent FPWD: if there’s something in HTML 4.01 but not in the HTML 5 FWPD, it doesn’t mean it won’t be in the final REC. A vocal group of accessibility experts have been criticising the current lack of some accessibility features in HTML 5.”
I think I’m in a similar boat to other standards-minded developers: Infinitely frustrated at the standards that are currently out there (but we’re unable to use all of) and at all of the rendering bugs I’m having to work around for even IE7 at work.
A lot of us haven’t actually read up on HTML 5 yet. About the only thing I’ve heard about it so far are rumors (”HTML 5 is giving up semantics in favor of easier use” - I’ve actually heard that from someone) and noise, in fact. What I need is an easy place to read up on all of the developments. An annotated list, if you will. If I could catch up with all of the current happenings, maybe I could even join the conversation, but as it is I’m way behind. I don’t have time to work at my “real job”, work on the open source project I’m heading, start class again at university on Monday, and try to wade through all of the previous HTML 5 conversations.
So, an easy place to read up on all of the current happenings with the spec is a must. (You may already have such a place, but the WHATWG.org site was down when I tried to visit it before writing this comment, as well as the mailing list.)
I think what all of the accessibility experts need to remember is that the spec is far from completion. Like I’ve heard a lot of the WHATWG and HTMLWG participants say in the comments here: just because something isn’t in the spec right now doesn’t mean it won’t be in the future. They haven’t even published the first working draft. It’s early in development. Now is not the time to be frustrated. There’s a long road ahead, so pace yourself and take it easy. We need all of the best and brightest working on this, because once the spec IS finished we still have to wait for IE to catch up for us to use any of it, so we need to give them as few excuses to implement it as possible. Most of us web professionals indeed want the web to have better usability, be accessible to everyone possible, even be a bit more modern. We have to waste so much time on usability and accessibility as it is, when our tools and the language spec itself should make all of that more automatic. We should be free to solve more interesting problems, like making the learning curve for the web smaller and smaller until interacting with a computer is just like normal human interaction instead of recreating an accessible form with validation for the hundredth time.
And to all of the developers like me who aren’t yet involved in the process: I would encourage you to get involved in the process now. Don’t wait until the last call for HTML 5 and then yell about all of these problems you have that haven’t been addressed.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:12 am
Have you seen the HTML 5 differences draft? That gives a rough indication of where the spec is in terms of features. The SVN tracker shows all the recent edits (at least when Dreamhost isn’t down), which may be helpful for following the spec’s progress. Those are probably not ideal - suggestions for better mechanisms would be good, and several people have suggested that they want to help make the WG more accessible to those who don’t have time to follow it closely.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Bingo. Berners-Lee is the one who needs to recognozie those things and he has to be the one to make them because of the existing structure of the W3C. The hodge podge that worked yesterday is impractical today. All business, operations, management, products, services, Web content, [and even Web standards and that seems to be a common demonator for the argument of the need for HTML 5] all things have an obsolesence. Recognize the obsolesence, make the changes and next time, always build for planned abandonment.
Carolyn Ann– Beners-Lee is the only one who can begin the process to affect the change and in the final result, step aside as the process occurs. If it doesn’t happen, the underlying basis of Holzschlag’s plea runs the risk of moving further up. [No assumption was made that Berners-Lee wants to lead. However, he has to recognize the necessity and initiate the process.] That short ride to Soldiers Field in Boston needs to be made.
PS. There are advantages to being an outsider. Perspective is not obscured by the bark of the tree.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
“…if there’s something in HTML 4.01 but not in the HTML 5 FWPD, it doesn’t mean it won’t be in the final REC.”
As one of those (very) vocal accessibility advocates, I have one fundamental question for the group of editors - why aren’t they? In the absence of “better” cowpaths, why are you removing the ones we have? Just because 97% of web authors out there do not use LONGDESC (either correctly or at all) should not, in-and-of-itself be a reason to remove an element, even from a draft. The idea of making the ALT attribute “optional” floats to the discussion - say what? The most basic accessibility feature on the face of the planet today is possibly going to become “optional”? I would argue that it become mandatory - always - and would further suggest that WYSIWYG editors be programmed/developed so that documents could not be “saved” if visual elements (either static images of multi-media objects) did not include alternative text or some other equivalent. The WHATWG/WHTM5 WG are de-constructing the spec and leaving the very elements we need on the cutting room floor, while at the same time blithely adding new features and elements such as , with at times nothing more than some test suite examples that only work in some browsers (and the ones that were shown to me were 100% completely inaccessible to any form of Adaptive Technology).
That others cannot see this as a very real fear and source of frustration further creates the antagonism that is being felt.
Molly did stop by the WHATWG IRC and asked this question: “why do things need to be removed per se?” [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070813#l-754]
It’s worth noting that the question was never answered, but instead was redirected to the fact that we are “evangelists” with agendas but no justifications. There is a frustration about signal to noise, but the frustration cuts both ways - we’re being smeared and belittled constantly, with our concerns being dismissed as “without justification”, or having “no carrots”. Publicly the authors speak a good speech, but within the working environment of their IRC they talk a whole different talk (read the logs, see for yourself). Think about that… And also think about why well known and respected web accessibility “players” have turned away out of frustration: T.V. Raman, Bruce Lawson, Steven Faulkner, Jukka Korpella, Tina Holboe, Patrick Lauke and on and on and on… A wise man once said where there’s smoke, there’s fire…
Meanwhile, Nate says:
“We have to waste so much time on usability and accessibility as it is,…”.
And herein lies one of the problems: some developers (and spec authors) see it as “a waste of time”. It’s not, it can’t be, and it should never be. Reading that one line both saddened and infuriated me, as it succinctly sums up the feelings I and others get when we are in discourse with the WHATWG editors.
But Molly is right, we need to rise up and get back at this. Maybe face2face is the answer, I don’t know. But personally *I’m* willing to try. Molly, I can commit to finding a location and resources in the Bay Area (California), and will further commit the time investment to getting something up and running here. My personal position and stake in the ground is very clear, but I am willing and prepared to try and make this work - as you said, we need to. However, I will suggest as well that it is incumbent on the WHATWG to do some serious fence-mending and bridge building: loosing terms like “evangelists” and conceptual funnies like “smell-o-vision” (and no, I will never let *that* one go completely…) would be a good place to start. Stop saying sarcastic things like “…that’s because all accessibility features are automatically *good*, regardless of how ineffective they are…” [http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20070816#l-524] - oft times the features are effective when used properly - it’s a poor workman who blames his tools. And even poor accessibility features are better than *NO* accessibility features, please don’t ever loose sight of that!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
that should have read:
“while at the same time blithely adding new features and elements such as <canvas> ,
August 17th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Well said… we could almost pull the alt attribute to be a commonly understood starting point line in the sand here. What was the rationale for making it optional? And who are the particular individuals in there pushing for alt to become optional?
My question then becomes - are these people just ‘anti-accessibility’? Is this an underlying agenda? Its a fair question because I don’t know. Someone must have proposed the idea and reasons put forward. Because if the direction is truely to get away from an accessible web its both socially irresponsible (everyone deserves access if possible to information and services) and economically irresponsible on behalf of future clients (because everyone should realise those people who won’t get access to somewhere won’t be buying goods or services there). Its not just an evangelical love story about a man a girl and a meaningful bit of alternate text (as a must).
So, I guess that is my starting point. Can anyone maybe tell me and everyone else in the trenches who isn’t up to speed on this why an alt attribute should be optional? Is that a statement about ‘optional accessibility’?
There will always be some problem when you have a specification-by-committee. Isn’t the description of a platypus an animal designed by a committee? My point is simply - and I have had committees in my life tell me many silly things even about myself - what happens if the font tag mentality gets control of the committee? That’s the ‘common perception’ that is getting around.
No I don’t think web standards is in trouble but I do think without some serious effort on behalf of these people they will just waste their time developing a new spec which will go mostly ignored. If we don’t end up supporting it, we the developers, then what makes anyone truely believe it’ll get the attention from browser manufacturers to become an across the board supported standard on all browsers of its time? Anyway to me that’s just common sense.
Please, why is alt going to be optional?
August 17th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Roger Johansson’s recent post about why he left and returned to the HTML working group:
“I was sick of watching as people were being ridiculed, ignored or dismissed when they asked questions, voiced objections, or otherwise tried to contribute.”
And has a further paragraph which I found interesting:
“Looking forward I think my energy will be best spent helping to produce documents that are useful to and readable by people who create websites. By the looks of things the actual HTML 5 specification will be extremely difficult to read, and basically created for browser vendors only.”
I am aware, as he states, that we’re talking way into the future for this spec to be actually implemented (he stated 2020). But it is important - ‘evil prospers when good men do nothing’ ring a bell to anyone? For now though I think a strong milestone is for everyone - especially the working group - to admit there is a communication issue.
And Molly this is a good first step pushing the bridge up to the river bank. I admire your determination.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
See the HTML5 spec - in its current state, it explains how to write appropriate and useful alt text, when to use an empty alt=”" (for decorative images and icons, if the image can be simply ignored without losing any information), and when to omit alt (for images that are important to the page’s meaning but cannot be usefully described in text). The distinction between alt=”" and missing alt means that UAs can know whether they should skip the image or should alert the user.
There are some problems with that approach - e.g. conformance checkers can’t tell whether alt is intentionally or accidentally omitted, and the rules are more complex to explain to authors, and UAs can’t really make decisions based on alt=”" vs missing alt since existing content uses a random mixture of those two. There are various suggestions for improving the situation, like requiring an explicit ‘noalt’ attribute or only allowing alt to be omitted inside a captioned <figure>, so it seems likely that the spec will be changed again.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“when to omit alt (for images that are important to the page’s meaning but cannot be usefully described in text”
could you give me an example of such an image that cannot in some way be described by meaningful text - and I don’t mean a picture perfect alternate text… everything must be able to be described to some degree. Surely a screen reader saying something at least moderately descriptive is better than ignoring it entirely…
at the point the image is content but can’t be described I would have to wonder if it isn’t just decorative but put in the content? Or am I missing something? As I understand this line of conversation the issue has always been put forward that because we can’t machine understand the various ways we would all write alternate text - so checkers can’t check if you just wrote garble - then they are generally a bad thing. I may be wrong in that understanding.
I’m not sure I really comprehend the rationale behind an empty alt=”" versus no alt? Wouldn’t it just be a simple case of ‘as currently happens’ if there is alt read it if there isn’t then don’t? Why does that have to be more complicated really?
Would this noalt attribute by any chance be inserted by default in WYSIWYG editors of the day? It sounds a little like ditching it to the common man. Sorry. And i probably don’t get the rationale behind figure either if it is just a container to put noalts into…
This would be a good discussion over a couple of beers and a bag of chips I think.
In the end my concern would come down to the simple question: will assistive technologies (and I don’t mean should) be providing accessible information to their users? It comes back to the idea some image is content but has no meaning? It just seems a foreign idea I have to sleep on. It is content but some users won’t know its there - why is it content then?
Sorry, but these are probably not uncommon questions. I also have to admit I don’t spend all my time reading specifications and will probably need good working documentation when it comes to implementing any of this. It will be interesting to see how the conversation progresses. I think I can see some of what you are saying about alt but I definately don’t agree with it.
Thanks for the explanation tough, much appreciated.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
The example in the spec is of uploading thousands of holiday photos to a site like Flickr - when you do that, the entire point is for people to look at the images. A description like alt=”Holiday photo, 2007″ or alt=”IMG_801275.jpg” is not an adequate or useful alternate for the image, and a description like alt=”Third photo of me standing on stepping stones across a wide river, looking slightly wobbly and waving at the camera” for every picture is far too impractical, since it would take days of work to enter all the descriptions and there are much more effective ways to describe your holiday (e.g. as a single page of text).
Those images are not just decorative, and using the same empty alt=”" syntax as for decorative images would lose that distinction. Forcing pages to be non-conformant, by requiring data which they are unable to provide, would discourage them from bothering with conformance (or would encourage them to find ways to work around the machine-checkable aspects of conformance, e.g. by adding a useless alt=”unknown” or repeating information that is already on the page).
(I don’t think I’m totally convinced by all this, but it is my understanding of the rationale for the current version of the HTML5 spec, and I don’t believe it is based around anti-accessibility ideas.)
August 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
mmm I see your point with the example, and it needs some thought… but I am wondering how much this idea is driven by that specific model of Flickr. Basically a bunch of home users (not necessarily techs) whacking up a bunch of photos to share with family. Similarly with MySpace or any other social networking site. I think the developers now need to be asking that question, too.
I say this as opposed to the model of a small to enourmous business which hopefully need to have tech savvy webbies to design / build / migrate their sites. I think the social networking model is a large anomoly but not the best example when its pulled apart. Not really. Similarly with blogs - let them do whatever they want with images etc… they are never going to conform are they? Seriously? Why would they even know about an alternate text attribute?
What I would not like to see is features like alt being ignored by government, business and services which every person has actually got a reasonable right to access if possible with the technology at hand. Home users and social networking sites I think are actually on a category of their own and dumbing down to make the horse fit the shoe isn’t really that logical from my perspective. In a couple of years we will all be gasping at a new model - something ubiquitous and not what we expect now - so simply catering to Flickr’s social model isn’t really the way forward is it?
In short I probably don’t get that every joe uploading to Flickr is a good example. Not really. Is this really a user agent problem or a business model problem for Flickr to figure a way around to offer some level of accessibility? Steps forward in technology over the next 20 years would also lead me to expect the image recognition capabilities and so forth will have moved ahead significantly from the Artificial Intelligence perspective…
I’m not totally sold on the example of Flickr is all. The only way that would even work is if there was always a default of no alt in the first place - or am I mistaken?
I apologise if I don’t get this - I thought in the real world it was up to commercial enterprises such as Flickr and so forth to attempt to service their customers. Including the disabled, various devices etc… I don’t feel comfortable with dumbing down to a no alt simply to give them some kind of validation of ‘not making the effort because its too hard’.
I’m hoping advances in science will solve some of these issues outside of markup. Thanks for clarifying this for me though, its greatly appreciated.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I know of nothing in the specification, and please correct me if I am wrong, that discusses use of images that create perception. Web content is a visual medium and design is perception, thus an integral part of communication. How much of the input regarding accessibility issues is actually submitted by individuals with disabilities, assistive technology developers and disability groups?
August 17th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“Web content is a visual medium and design is perception”
I’m sorry but design is both form and function… by definition a two legged stool can look like a great bit of art but be a lousy bit of furniture design. The web is actually becoming more and more about machines talking to machines as well as about people interacting with machines - don’t underestimate the way these technologies will be working into the not so distant future. The current web paradigms we hold in our head will not always be this way - desktop / laptop PC + human = web interaction.
“How much of the input regarding accessibility issues is actually submitted by individuals with disabilities, assistive technology developers and disability groups?”
So only a disabled person can lobby for accessibility? I don’t understand that at all. I don’t know how many have or do. I do know that it would be better to have an accessible government web site than an inaccessible one for someone who uses a screen reader for example. Or is that too high a bar to aim for in 20 years time? I’m unsure of this line of comment to be honest. Its almost like hearing “blind people don’t use the web anyway”… seriously?
August 17th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
sorry molly for taking over your comments - I’ll shut up now (promise)
August 17th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Clark–
I believe you are trying to read things into my intent of the questions. I was speaking of use of imagery within design that is used to develop perception, only. I was not discounting nor interested in the use of design in regards to form and function. Form and function are not part of the points that I am attempting to raise.
Please, the questions I have raised are not about advocacy or lobbying. They are questions, that currently, are asked and presented at face value, only.
However, a very good point has presented itself within your questions and I am not taking exception with you. That point is, the failure of written media, e-Mail, IRC as an effective and efficient method for discussion of standards and complexities of accessibilities issues, in general.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
sorry, I had to read your comment several times and found it convoluted… i must have misread your meaning. You’re right - email and IRC are absolutely the worst place to discuss this stuff because there isnt any non-visual cues in there which make up a big part of the communication. A couple of beers and a bag of chips…
Sorry for misinterpreting your comment.
Imagery within design that is used to develop perception is interesting though. That is where I would call an image not content but presentation and call it from CSS.
Yes I think it must be an absolute nightmare trying to administer a spec by committee over a lot of time, a number of cultures and nationalities, and intermixed with varying interest groups. I’m not sure it will work to be honest. There is always the option of having something just made by a beneficial dictator then improved through comment over time I suppose - it would have to be faster and less painstaking than pulling teeth on IRC and email lol…
cheers, sorry I misread your comment - I better shut up and get this work done its already after midday here.
August 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Clark–
By no means do you, personally, ever need to make an apology to me. I understand.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Mr. Foley,
You obviously misread my comment.
“We have to waste so much time on usability and accessibility as it is…”
If you read my full comment, in context, I hope you realized that I was talking about us web developers having to “re-solve” the same problems over and over for the past 10 years. There are usability and accessibility issues that should be taken care of AUTOMATICALLY by the spec and by the browser itself. It’s less time spent by the developers, and less error-prone. Usability should be THE number one priority on the web, and accessibility should be right up there with it, but why are we still solving the same usability and accessibility problems we’ve been solving for the past 5 years? It shouldn’t be something we have to worry about because it should be more automatic and let us start solving different problems. Is that more clear? That’s one thing I hope HTML 5 addresses.
Please read comments more carefully instead of deciding there is some developer attitude problem that needs to be addressed.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Sorry, I meant Mr. Foliot!
August 18th, 2007 at 9:26 am
The accessibility issue is a relevant example of my point.
I can’t find any discussion or examination of what it means, or the implications for the standard. Bits and pieces over the forum, maybe.
So while everyone agrees that it’s desirable, no one has developed a road map, a strategy or even a single-pager describing the problem. (Not that I could find, at least! My apologies if it’s out there, and I was simply not looking hard enough.)
An approach needs to be developed: accessibility is desirable and needed, but do the mechanisms that address it need to be perfect from the get-go? Maybe some experience is needed, or at least asking those who might have some experience! “Delegating” the problem, in other words.
And another thing: before anyone assumes that they’re being insulted, can you stop and think for a moment? Maybe the person replying doesn’t have the command of the English language you have? Or makes a mistake in their phrasing. Or a dozen other reasons. Sometimes and insult is an insult, but mostly it’s simply a rushed statement with an entirely different intent.
Carolyn Ann
August 18th, 2007 at 9:56 am
“In short I probably don’t get that every joe uploading to Flickr is a good example.”
It’s a use case that cannot be ignored.
Hopefully Philip Taylor’s comments will help folks understand the process, and that the supposed accessibility “problems” with HTML5 cited by some are somewhat misleading.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Carolyn Ann, probably a good place to start would be to read Joe Clark’s ‘Building Accessible Web Sites’ available free online.
http://joeclark.org/book/
There are other resources if one searches. I think the problem isn’t about whether accessibility is important but a potentially confusing subject to some which muddies the waters - the question is accessibility about the disabled or about everyone? Good question really but I think its a lot about splitting hairs.
If for example the goal is that accessibility is for everyone then the disabled are included. If its just for the disabled then there might be an implication you might exclude some groups in favour of a blind person, theoretically. Personally I think the first one is righter but they’re both right.
Accessibility practices aren’t that hard to find either. There is little doubt that providing high quality content and headings for example makes something more usable and therefore more accessible. If someone is using a text browser / screen reader offering them a skip link to jump past the navigation bar on every page they go to might just be of benefit. Providing font sizes in ems is also beneficial so even in IE fonts can be scaled larger. There are a lot of pieces of information out there if one is looking. Reading about case studies of Jaws or HomePage Reader users is also quite interesting.
This is an interesting link to Yahoo! Theatre (part of a series) looking at people using screen magnifier / reader software. Its handy to see how some others use the web.
http://yuiblog.com/blog/2007/06/12/video-intro-to-screen-magnifiers/
There is also the issue of an aging population who are losing eyesight, declining motor skills and associated illnesses. These are large numbers of people I’ll be mentioning. The mentally disabled, palsey comes to mind, english as a second language, colour blindness is actually quite common especially in men, and I myself am mildly photosensitive epileptic so if I see something flickering within certain hertz (London logo comes to mind) then I have to dry reach - while others will have to go to hospital.
I’m probably slightly an evangilist in this area in the strong conviction that everyone deserves at least to have the best government, commercial and social service sites available - just from a social equity perspective. But more than that I’m a practical businessman. If using separation of content from presentation from behaviour allows me to create better product which is easier and cheaper to maintain and redesign later, if on top of that I can easily enhance that with some minor things like skip links and being careful about what colours I use or reading up on Fitts Law etc then that is more open credit cards potentially available to my client’s economic purpose. Fundamentally my business is to help my client make his business more profitale - so accessibility isn’t a hypothetical evangalistic ideal really its a business objective. Why exclude someone either out of ignorance or on purpose from your store simply by writing text too small or having grey on dark background text? You can still have beautiful designs while creating more accessible web sites.
Paul Boag’s video impresses students in my class
http://boagworld.com/standards/
I think one of the major myths out there is that there might be an ‘accessiblity holy grail’ or a ‘definitive across the board answer’ to accessibility. That’s not so. But what you can do is build your site with good content, valid code, smart thinking about users and trying to spread the net of your economic opportunity as wide as possible. This is where graceful degradation and progressive enhancement come in, usability and accessibility are closely related, and its where thinking ‘what if the user doesn’t have JavaScript’ means you don’t wind up whacking in a main menu programmed in JS which (if not available) means nobody can get into the guts of your site.
Most of it is about common sense.
I was helping a bipolar woman I have known for a decade (this was yesterday afternoon). I was surprised that she has such bad motor skills simply from 20 years of taking medication to control her condition - I even had to set up the mouse to very slow double click for example. Her ability to click icons on the desktop was impaired dramatically and just to walk her through how to access the internet from my desktop, make a hotmail account and subscribe to a medical journal online took 3 hours! It was very enlightening. If you passed her in the street she doesn’t look that disabled - add to the physical the fact not everyone is actually into computers and we make assumptions every day that people know what these concepts are about. Anyway I have probably made my point.
I’d suggest starting with Joe Clark and moving outward. Don’t expect there to be a definitive journal of this stuff because its an area where investigation and research are quite broad. Nonetheless its about making smarter business decisions not catering to the guy in the wheelchair…
sorry if I ranted here everyone and I can’t come back today to converse but Carolyn Ann has hit a nail on the head in the accessibility discussion. Does there need to be a definitive book on it? Probably not. Its not a specification, its simply a way of developing that expands a little on usability. Its also a business case.
K gotta run, sorry again molly for sidetracking the conversation.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
mattur
we will have to agree to disagree on the validity of that use case… i guess its about how we see the web.
i see that no matter what we do the general populace who are going to use social networking make dodgey blog content etc are going to be there (its pointless to expect they will ever write quality meaningful content let alone put any thought into more than uploading their images)… to me they are a second tier and although on the surface the use case looks reasonable I don’t think it is really reasonable
the first tier is the professional environment - business, services, government - where things should be dealt with correctly even if they aren’t at the moment. Giving these guys a no alt default is like just telling the professional world they can ignore that one - too hard. If my gov’t can get its act together to drop bombs in Iraq it can start to consider whether our citizens can access their forms online… (IMO)
I have to really run now though but again these are conversations which would benefit greatly from a couple of beers and a bag of chips on friday nights. Something like the coffee club would be a good idea, informally sharing ideas and not the whole formal delivery conference thing…
http://entrepreneur.meetup.com/1136/
at the end of the year here (in Tasmania) I may give that a go… might even get myself a black eye lol…
cheers mattur and enjoy your weekend… (sorry again molly I really will shut up now if only to get some of my work here done - behind schedule!)
August 18th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
oh Carolyn Ann i should add the impact on HTML 5 of accessibility is in issues of making alt an optional attribute of image, for example. And yes there needs to be more information on this level in general english. These should be discussed openly as they are, in my opinion, quite important changes to how we would view assistive technologies which might use the attribute (or might in the future).
Of course all of this is in 10 - 20 years time so if anyone thinks they’ll still be using a mouse and a desktop paradigm it might be time to put that in a time capsule in the back yard lol… microsoft surface looks interesting and ubiquitious computing is another term you might google.
OK now I’m being dragged physically off to the clothes store…. arrrgggghhhh… bye
August 18th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Having just spent the last eight hours reviewing and studying IRC logs over several weeks, I come away with one single descriptive noun — abortion.
I take that view not so much from a technical aspect, I was more interested in looking at intent behind actions, at attitude and perspective. It is those intangibles that formulate final product. This is from public logs of communication. I cannot begin to fathom what must go on and thus demonstrate attitude within private communication.
I have asked questions as to why certain critical fields of expertise were not represented within the working groups. I now understand why they do not participate.
I simply don’t need the working groups nor does the market need you. Technology and markets will always find a way. I understand the Adobe and Mozilla collaboration and it is a necessary thing. It is just another indication of what may be coming. If such collaborative efforts continue, expand, become even more focused with the creation of communication delivery joint ventures and thus fragment the Web, so what. Business and the consumer will still find ways to communicate effectively. The consumer drives that and not some herd of diminishing white elephants.
The pleasure has truly been mine.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
A clothes store… I like those!
LOL!
Thanks, Steven. That was really an interesting post, and I, for one, appreciate your candor and straightforward assessment of the situation.
If only the HTML5 forums reacted to such, the efforts would be, I think, a little more “productive”.
Maybe the accessibility stuff should be separated out from the “other” stuff? I’ve no idea how that might work, technically. But I do know that so far anything would be better than the current situation or approach. (That’s obviously not working…)
Thanks for the book reference! I took a quick browse through the pages, and I’m looking forward to reading it much more thoroughly.
Okay. Here’s a question: how can “we” (a vague and necessary identifier) usurp the Standardization Committee and either force some results, or them to do their job? So far I think the US Congress has the lead on being quick… (I don’t know; I can’t help but think that some US lawmakers are looking to the Web Standards people for inspiration on how to make the decision processes even more stagnant, contorted and beholden to “special interests”. Without appearing to be all that.)
Do the issues need forcing? How can that be achieved, if required? What can “we” (a vague and necessary identifier…) do to facilitate the conclusion of what has obviously been an arduous and endless job? I can’t help but think that if something hasn’t been issued in 5 years, there’s something seriously wrong with the entire process. It’s not helping the (web) industry: it’s making a mockery of it!
And again, a big “Thank You” to Molly for facilitating, hosting and enabling this sort of discussion. I get a sense it was needed, and Molly stepped up to the plate.
Carolyn Ann
August 18th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Maybe you should consider hosting a workshop on this topic at the next International Web Conference (www.www2008.org)? It’s a good opportunity for W3C members and others to get together.
August 19th, 2007 at 1:15 am
mmm interesting questions… (and I did buy some clothes btw lol)
This is where I’ve tended to be like a number of others - turn my back and ignore most of the kerfuffle.
Standards (or in actuality they just make recommendations) are only as good as the people who are willing to implement them. The single most powerful factor we have over HTML 5 is that we are the people who will implement or ignore its presence in the trenches. So the big pushers of this spec in these directions really need to remember its us they’re going to have to market it to… and we are the influencers of others who may likewise ignore it.
So my message to the Working Group is that communication is key. Getting rid of LONGDESC and making a no alt attribute are only going to isolate the Working Group to a degree they probably don’t realise yet. Why not just make an ‘invalid code’ attribute for the HTML tag and provide a get out clause for everyone on the basis that only a fraction of one percent of pages on the web are valid anything anyway lol… its a valid enough argument statistically. To my mind in the same vein as the Flickr needing a ‘no alt’ use case.
In the end when 2015 comes around I will use the best tool of the day and experience tells me HTML 5 won’t be the only option of the day. If they don’t market their product to me I’ll consign it to noise I guess. Maybe we’ll all be interacting with something Flash based and purpose built for accessibility to many groups, pre-internationalized by default, and which doesn’t even use standard markup in the way we know it now… or in such a different way that its not HTML anything…
The biggest challenge therefore of the Working Group in my opinion is to ’stay relevant’.
Anyway that’s all only an opinion and many people mightn’t agree with me. That’s fine. I guess its food for thought though lol…
ah the weekend is over already! And I got NO work done at all…
August 19th, 2007 at 1:31 am
John Foliot wrote:
“also think about why well known and respected web accessibility “players” have turned away out of frustration: T.V. Raman, Bruce Lawson, Steven Faulkner…”
While I am honoured to be mentioned along with such “accessibility players”. It is incorrect to say that I have turned away from the HTML 5 WG. I am following the proceedings closely and contributing where I can.
thacker wrote:
“How much of the input regarding accessibility issues is actually submitted by individuals with disabilities, assistive technology developers and disability groups?”
From what I know of the individuals who are considered as being accessibility advocates, two of the them are vision impaired and use screen reader software, at least one other has a disability which affects their ability to access web content. So from a small group, a substantial number have a disability, of the others many work within the accessibility field and interact with people who have disabilities on a regular basis. they also work with the assistive technologies that are used to access web content.
Another question should be posed based on your question:
Of those who made and continue to make decisions to drop or modify the “accesssibility features” from HTML 4 how many of them are “individuals with disabilities, assistive technology developers and disability groups?”
August 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
thacker wrote:
“How much of the input regarding accessibility issues is actually submitted by individuals with disabilities, assistive technology developers and disability groups?”
- I’m one; see My multiple sclerosis and web accessibility [self-link].
August 21st, 2007 at 10:02 am
Faulkner, Lawson–
Thank you very much.
Re: MS — I have seen a surge [a surge in people whom I know] over the last ten years of MS and other autoimmune diseases. It is very disturbing. Issues such as that make these standards issues seem rather insignificant.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Holzschlag–
I just posted this on Zeldman’s blog—
What is the market saying with the intended development of this:
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/japan_working_to_replace_the_internet.php
Japan working to replace the Internet
Yoshihide Suga said Friday that Japan will start research and development on technology for a new generation of network that would replace the Internet, eyeing bringing the technology into commercial use in 2020. […]
The envisaged network is expected to ensure faster and more reliable data transmission, and have more resilience against computer virus attacks and breakdowns. The ministry is hoping Japan will take a lead in development of post-Internet technology and setting global standards, a move that ministry officials believe would help make Japanese companies competitive in the global market for hardware and software using such technology.
Risk of a severe fragmentation? A wakeup call?
——
Lady, I have and will continue to back your intuition and your instinct. I am afraid that you may be right. Enough indicators appear to be there. Those indicators just may not be speaking in the “geek-speak” that too many care or can understand.
August 31st, 2007 at 4:56 am
it doesnot work wat i should do??
August 31st, 2007 at 4:59 am
yup hellooooooooooooooooooo eveybody iam beautiful i have long brown hair and l have light brown eyes
August 31st, 2007 at 5:00 am
ana goodbye for ever
September 4th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Molly,
I agree with your vision of wanting web standards, I agree with the efforts being taken to create them, but I also believe in the way the Internet has worked for the past 10 - 15 years.
Standards are created, but they are not enforced, leaving the ability for freedom of creativity to still reign.
If we were to start making standards imperial, we will loose the essence of what the Internet is. To me, this is the same as Google accumulating too much power, which it has.
In my opinion, let’s keep developing standards, but never make a body that is supposed to enforce them.
September 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
[…] 15 de agosto - Molly propone soluciones a la situación […]
September 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
[…] The discussion has been going on for a while and for the uninitiated I’d suggest you read Roger Johansson’s lates post - Can the alt attribute be omitted without hurting accessibility? Or Molly Holzschlag’s post - Web standards situation solutions. While a lot of the HTML 5 conversation goes over my head (I’m not in the time position to follow the development of a specification too closely) there are some parts which I strongly feel need attention. […]
September 8th, 2007 at 2:12 am
Hi Molly,
just found your Website and start reading …
I think this will be enough for the next days
Greeting from Germany,
Mike
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:14 am
Goog idea : I’d suggest starting with Joe Clark and moving outward. Don’t expect there to be a definitive journal of this stuff because its an area where investigation and research are quite broad. Nonetheless its about making smarter business decisions not catering to the guy in the wheelchair…
September 30th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Google idea : I’d suggest starting with Joe Clark and moving outward. Don’t expect there to be a definitive journal of this stuff because its an area where investigation and research are quite broad. Nonetheless its about making smarter business decisions not catering to the guy in the wheelchair…
November 12th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
[…] The discussion has been going on for a while and for the uninitiated I’d suggest you read Roger Johansson’s lates post - Can the alt attribute be omitted without hurting accessibility? Or Molly Holzschlag’s post - Web standards situation solutions. While a lot of the HTML 5 conversation goes over my head (I’m not in the time position to follow the development of a specification too closely) there are some parts which I strongly feel need attention. […]
November 29th, 2007 at 12:39 am
very interesting
November 29th, 2007 at 7:35 am
thank you sir
December 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Great boyscef1ea1a3c6c9aac556e33f3c1ea9a79
December 16th, 2007 at 11:22 am
thanks nice text.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:35 am
Thanks for this article. it is very useful for me.
January 5th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
thanks nice text
January 11th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
I use it every time and get a good results.
Great
January 19th, 2008 at 12:17 am
thanx
January 25th, 2008 at 4:14 am
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
January 25th, 2008 at 4:22 am
ankara nakliyat
ankara nakliyat
January 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
thanx
January 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
thanx
January 31st, 2008 at 4:02 am
thanks
January 31st, 2008 at 4:03 am
very nice
January 31st, 2008 at 4:04 am
good thanks
January 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
To a good first approximation, Obama seems to be the sort of nominee you’re looking for
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
There are many useful informations in this great article…I really enjoy reading the whole blog that you write. Thanks!
February 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
thanks
February 25th, 2008 at 5:27 am
comand
March 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
thanks
March 30th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I have been waiting for someone to try to step up and put Google in their place! *crosses her fingers for Yahoo*
April 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
thax.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
www.forumset.net - thanx
April 16th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
ankara nakliyat.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:10 am
thats the matter i want to learn
May 10th, 2008 at 2:02 am
thanks very nice web sitee
May 10th, 2008 at 2:03 am
thnx molly
May 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
www.forumset.net thans you
May 20th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Thanks…
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
thanks
May 30th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
thankss so
June 1st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
thank youu blogger
June 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
thankss
June 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
the endss thankss
June 4th, 2008 at 5:15 am
thanks for this text
June 5th, 2008 at 4:16 am
thank you
June 5th, 2008 at 9:13 am
sorry molly for taking over your comments thanks
June 6th, 2008 at 1:41 am
antalya otelleri thank you
June 6th, 2008 at 1:42 am
thanxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
June 6th, 2008 at 1:42 am
thanx for game cheats
June 6th, 2008 at 1:43 am
thanx you metin2
June 6th, 2008 at 1:44 am
thanx for oyun hileleri
June 8th, 2008 at 12:58 am
THANKS
June 8th, 2008 at 12:59 am
THANK YOU
June 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
thank you
June 8th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
thanksss
June 21st, 2008 at 3:19 am
wvskqz xnpufgyw mfxdaonv whvcg nupzsab skyznx fipjlg
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:09 am
thanks.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
thanx
July 21st, 2008 at 10:11 am
hello admin
July 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
thanx
July 25th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Very nice article! Thanks for this!
doumo_arigatou
July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 am
thanks
July 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
mpurx kdwurpn qlvp dyrhek
August 1st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
vxwny zkmwif tgxco
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 am
sqyxnua
August 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
thanx for oyun hileleri
August 6th, 2008 at 12:49 am
fausc dojkrsc tlzrjq