On 1/7/15 6:51 PM, John Foliot wrote: > (Q: what part of openness = rejecting an attribute that many still > want to see retained? That seems very "closed" to me...)
Don't confuse "open" with a democratic and/or consensus process. Open means that our decision making process is as transparent as possible (for example public mailing lists and announced team meetings that interested parties can participate in) and that the source is available under a license that allows someone else to take it and fork it if they are unhappy with our stewardship. In the end the technical leaders on the project weigh the options and make a decision. Like most people they are likely to stop listening to counter-arguments when the people on the other side start yelling at them. > Having a collective of sighted engineers telling the non-sighted > community that they don't need a feature because those same sighted > engineers had a hard time 'getting it' is, was, and remains > unacceptable. We are proud of our support for accessibility features and invest heavily in it. At least one of our non-sighted engineers has contributed to this thread and the best he could muster in support was that it wouldn't be worth the political hassle to remove it (which I find persuasive enough, but I don't have a voice in this decision). > I'm not sure about you, but I generally choose democracy over > autocracy roughly 100% of the time. Mozilla is not a democracy. Neither is the W3C. > But the "semantics" of an infographic is that a sighted person crams > a bunch of data into a "picture" and posts in on a web page using the > barely semantic <img> element. To ensure that picture is accessible > to non-sighted users, you need to provide a text equivalent of that > picture *somewhere*, and naively thinking that designers will include > that text on the same page as the infographic flies in the face of > any design aesthetic I've ever encountered over the close-to 20 years > I've been on the web, and I challenge anyone to show me a production > website with an infographic today that does that. Solve *that* > problem, and then you can retire @longdesc - but not before. This was > the argument that won the debate at the W3C. Infographics are a horrific experience for anyone, I'll grant you that. In theory longdesc could help, but do you have any examples that demonstrate the sort of people who inflict infographics on the world would actually use longdesc? -Dan Veditz _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
