Hi, Jonathan-
(This is a personal reply, not an official W3C comment.)
Jonathan Chetwynd wrote (on 7/18/08 6:53 AM):
**Members of working groups are interpreting the current charters to
prevent discussion of whether their charter is actually meeting the
needs of end-users. I have personal experience of this in respect
of public lists and or phone conferences for WAI, SVG and CSS groups
Nobody on the SVG WG said or did any such thing, and you know it. I
read every email on that list, and I take into account even
non-technical feedback that might somehow require a change to our
specifications, and the SVG WG is very receptive to the needs of users
and authors. I myself spend quite a lot of time thinking about how
graphics can be made more accessible, building examples and test cases,
and working with other groups inside and outside W3C to work toward that
goal. I would probably spend even more time if I had it.
So, I think you owe the SVG WG a retraction and an apology for your slander.
In fact, I tried to engage you, Jonathan, to contribute in a
collaborative and productive way in the SVG Interest Group, but you said
you didn't have the time. I went through considerable effort to create
an IG to do exactly what you're asking: engage users and authors who
have different backgrounds (designers, non-English-speakers, people with
accessibility needs) at a social and semi-technical level, to drive use
cases for our specs. The first thing you did upon joining was to malign
and complain about the IG, in emails to the public lists and me
privately, and on the IG wiki... before we'd even got a chance to get
started. This kind of counterproductive and negative attitude calls
into question your willingness to work with others (which is critical in
a large organization) to make the needed change, rather than just
standing on the sidelines complaining.
Finally, you told me you don't have time to participate; your reason
(getting involved in a new activity) is understandable... but it seems
to have made you no more sympathetic to the fact that all of us are
busy, too.
I find it amusing that you complain that WG participants are not
engaging in accessibility, and cry foul at being told not to post on a
certain subject, in light of you telling me to "consider not replying to
emails that contain the keyword 'accessibility'". [1]
I suspect that you would find a more receptive audience to your use
cases and requirements, and to your claimed constituency, if you were to
try a less divisive and more cooperative approach. I suggest you watch
this video that discusses "poisonous people" [2], and reflect how this
might affect how you engage in a dialog on W3C lists.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2004Oct/0021.html
[2] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
Regards-
-Doug
