[html4all.org] FYI: DP survey answers and comments
Gregory J. Rosmaita
oedipus at hicom.net
Thu Aug 23 18:02:15 PDT 2007
if you, like me, think that it is insane to stick extended prose into
a table -- regardless of whether one can see it or not -- and that
results such as the ones gathered by the WBS server are tailor-made
for a definition list, i'm sending out my answers and comments on
the proposed design principles questionaire in case anyone is
interested; note that i did not review other WG members' answers
and reasoning before i filled out the survey, something i did by
choice, so as to preserve the spontaneity and candor of my
answers... gregory.
1. Do you support the "Support Existing Content" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
----
2. Do you support the "Degrade Gracefully" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments: this is an essential principle
----
3. Do you support the "Do not Reinvent The Wheel" principle?
* (x) Neutral
Comments:
whose wheel are we referring to? that defined by HTML 4.01, its
corrections, addenda, and errata?
i am against the codification of features and markup that is not
standardized across platforms and which may, therefore, "break" the
web for users of "legacy technology"
simply because feature x or element y work in a particular user agent,
and is mimiced by others, does not mean that a new and improved wheel
has been created. any such "wheels" need to be vetted on an individual
basis to address i18n, device independence, media independence, and
accessibility for persons with disabilities.
----
4. Do you support the "Pave the Cowpaths" principle?
* (x) Strongly Disagree
Comments:
cattle are notoriously bad navigators, known to go far out of the way
when encountering an obstacle -- for example, it is not uncommon for
cattle ranchers to surround their territory not only with fences and
barbed wire, but by simply digging a steep trench, deeper than a cow
is tall, to keep them penned in without an actual "pen"; what's more,
they are subject to the "herd mentality" which a standard setting
organization such as the W3C should strongly discourage...
what is needed is not a principle of "pave the cowpaths", but the
principle "apply ockham's razor" [1] -- don't follow the meanderings of
the herd, when a more direct solution is superior.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor
----
5. Do you support the "Evolution Not Revolution" principle?
* (x) Agree
Comments:
evolution not only entails the growth and maturity of new features, but
also the loss of features that provide nothing more than a quick path to
extinction.
----
6. Do you support the "Solve Real Problems" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments:
this is one of the cornerstones of interoperability, accessibility,
usability, and internationalization.
accessibility features are particularly important "real problems", not
theoretical constructs. there is an entire activity at the W3C devoted
to addressing the real problems that confront users with disabilities.
(http://www.w3.org/WAI)
----
7.Do you support the "Priority of Constituencies" principle?
* (x) Agree
Comments:
i agree that the cascade of constituencies begins with the user, whose
needs trump those of authors (who are often limited by the limitations of
an authoring tool) and who can learn "best practices", unlike someone who
cannot see or hear, who cannot simply "learn" to see or hear;
the cascade of priority of constituencies should be users (with a
!important), authors, then implementors
i'm not sure what the term "theoretical purity" is intended to convey;
what i do know is that the pursuit of producing semantically meaningful,
well structured document instances and user interfaces must be considered
from the very beginning and throughout the process of developing a
technical recommendation.
----
8. Do you support the "Media Independence" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments:
i hold this truth to be self-evident...
----
9. Do you support the "Universal Access" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments:
while i strongly agree in theory with "universal access" i am concerned
about scope creep into this principle; not everything in the document
source need be exposed to the user -- a TABLE summary is redundant for
anyone looking at the table and automatically associating individual data
cells with their headings, so there is no need for exposition of a
summary, unless the user expressly requests it, in which case, it can be
used as rendered explanatory text; universal access should mean that
HTML5 provides strong enough mechanisms that support the concept of the
semantic web, explicit meta-data bindings (both embedded and external),
and markup flexible enough to be reused or reformatted/re-presented to
the user in a form which is useable; in the end, the user must be the
focus of HTML5, not solely authors, authoring tool developers, or user
agent developers, although i do support strong conformance criteria for
authoring tool and user agent conformance in the HTML5 draft;
i would also strongly support verbiage to the effect that:
"The HTML WG is committed to defining and providing features to make
the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive. Access by everyone
-- regardless of ability or experience -- is an essential component
of universal access. The HTML5 WG is commited to retain features that
provide access to all users, unless alternate/equivalent or superior
mechanisms are provided in their place. The HTML WG's deliverables
will satisfy the accessibility requirements which led Tim Berners-Lee
to initiate the Web Accessibility Initiative as a W3C activity. To
ensure that accessibility requirements are addressed and improved,
the HTML WG will work closely with the WAI, and adhere to the
Technical Recommendations which the WAI has produced."
----
10. Do you support the "Support World Languages" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments:
it is the world wide web -- need anyone say more?
----
11. Do you support the "Secure By Design" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
Comments:
security is an important issue for disabled users, who often need to
make a "leap of faith" that their browsing experience is safe and
does not make them vulnerable to malicious code, trojan horses,
phishing sites, and data-interception.
it is essential that accessibility not be sacrificed on the altar of
security -- there are means of ensuring security that do NOT present
barriers to users with disabilities, as has been discussed in various W3C
fora -- particularly surrounding the issue of final form documents -- and
the HTML WG should use such exchanges as a means of re-considering the
"security trumps accessibility" straw man.
----
12. Do you support the "Separation of Concerns" principle?
* (x) Strongly Disagree
Comments:
i strongly disagree with this principle as expressed in:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/html5/html-design-
principles/Overview.html?rev=HEAD#solve-real-problems
i do NOT agree that "seperation of concerns" is a balancing act between
"semantic expressiveness" and "practical usefulness"
any seperation of concerns is a fragmentation of what is supposed to be a
coherent, technical recommendation; as i have posted to the HTML WG's
mailing list, i believe in the "convergence of issues" principle
that being said, i would have voted for the principle were it stated
simply as "Separation of Content from Presentation"
----
13. Do you support the "Well-Defined Behavior" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
----
14. Do you support the "Avoid Needless Complexity" principle?
* (x) Strongly Disagree
Comments:
some issues are complex by nature, and by avoiding them, the ML becomes
weaker, rather than stronger; this is an author-centric and
developer-centric idea -- it has little to do with the ultimate
beneficiary of HTML's reform -- the end user
----
15. Do you support the "Handle Errors" principle?
* (x) Strongly Agree
----
16. Whether you support adopting any one principle or not, do you support
publishing the draft for community review?
* (x) Only after critical issues are addressed
Rationale:
there is no agreement on the principles due to WG members talking
past one another, and -- in some cases, the most troubling being ian
hickson's -- actively ignoring the contributions and concerns of other
WG members; i am also concerned that one of the editors of the HTML5
draft has repeatedly stated that he is obligated to clear all WHAT WG
issues before attending to HTML WG issues; that is his perogative if
the changes are effected to an external draft or submitted on an
individual basis for review, but once a W3C editorship is accepted,
that editor has an obligation to fellow working group members to
address the issues raised in the forum in which the draft is being
developed, and that forum is the W3C;
----
17. Are you OK to delegate some edits?
* [x] any small/editoral changes, where "small" is judged by the chair
Comments:
i would prefer that a dual editorship not be monopolized by individuals
with a vested interest in HTML5 as it stands; i would support a neutral
alternative to maciej -- namely, laura carlson, who has displayed an
adeptness at communicating and bridge building which maciej has not
as for the question, as long as the WG is notified of changes via the
WG's announce list, "any small/editoral changes, where "small" is
judged by the chair" should be announced to the WG as a whole -- small
is a relative concept, and we are attempting to pin down concrete
concepts
if there was a "none of the above" or "abstain" choice for this
question, i would have chosen one or the other, until the matter of
editorial responsibility is addressed and a firm commitment to tracking
issues in the HTML WG is made part of the editor's responsibility,
although i always thought that was part of the editor's responsibility
anyway.
i would also request that the chairs define "small" before this question
is closed.
gregory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can fool anyone with statistics, Marge -- 47% of all Americans
know that!" -- more wisdom from Homer J. Simpson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus at hicom.net
Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the List_HTML4all.org
mailing list