[html4all] Copy of e-mail to Karl Dubost

[Charles McCathieNevile]

In Karl's defense...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:38:53 +0200, Philip TAYLOR  
<Philip-and-LeKhanh at royal-tunbridge-wells.org> wrote:

> And Karl's response :
>
>> Philip Taylor (Webmaster) (17 sept. 2007 - 12:26) :
>
>>> Right, so where are the "different parties" in your phrase
>>> "the needs of implementers" ?  The only parties I can find
>>> there are implementors -- what about the needs of
>>>
>>>     o consumers
>>
>> Are everyone else, Usually, products exist only because there are  
>> consumers. If consumers are not satisfied, the products die.

This is pretty much true. And one of the things that W3C does, and that  
Karl in particular does, is ensure that consumers get a real voice before  
the products are finalised and offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Opera is an implementor. Inside the company we have consumers, and as  
customers we have millions more of them. Our goal is to provide what they  
want and need, and if we don't do that we won't have the millions of users  
we do today.

>>>     o those with special accessibility needs
>>
>> These are consumers too. The ethics goal of caring for them is a noble  
>> goal, but is not very effective (unfortunately) in our society. The  
>> goal is more that there is really a need to make business with these  
>> users.

Again, this is true. Accessibility is a collection of the diverse needs of  
users - usability is also important, users understanding security and not  
getting led to do things that harm them is important (and many users don't  
even realise it until they have been burned by something, when it is  
generally too late), compatibility with actual websites is important. It  
is great to have a browser that is accessible, but if it is incompatible  
with your bank, it still doesn't actually solve your real world problem of  
wanting to manage your money on your own.

I have worked hard in Opera on accessibility, as have various developers,  
and our new alpha with some screen reader compatibility is a reflection of  
that. We have work still to do, and we are doing it. We have millions of  
people screaming for lots of other features too, and if we run out of  
users we die - so everyone ends up with nothing. We would love to do  
everything at once, but we can't. A modern browser is a very complex piece  
of software, and is critical to many different people in many different  
ways.

We care a lot about HTML and how it develops. I think the HTML WG, like  
the WHAT WG, the XHTML WG, and every other group I have come across  
working in this space, has some serious flaws. If I had a solution for  
them all, I would have offered it. As far as I am concerned, the W3C  
process offers the best option available to ensure a decent outcome, and I  
am very glad that the HTML WG exists. I would love it to work better,  
faster, take more input and be easier to follow, and while I think there  
are definitely things that could be improved and things that should be  
improved, I am backing it over the alternatives. Because I believe that it  
offers more of what you are asking for in your mail, and because I know  
and trust people like Karl to ensure that it delivers as much of that as  
possible.

He's on your side, but he does the difficult job of being a W3C staff  
contact. I have done that job (but never in as difficult a group as HTML  
WG), and I have an immense respect for the people who do it. I also know  
Karl, and trust him personally. I think this exchange has been more about  
misunderstanding between people who have the same goals and ideas than  
anything else, which makes it depressing to see it held up as though it  
was something that should upset people.

Cheers

Chaals

-- 
   Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
   hablo español  -  je parle français  -  jeg lærer norsk
chaals at opera.com   http://snapshot.opera.com - Kestrel (9.5α1)