Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
Ian Jacobs, Tim Berners-Lee and other W3C
officers have discussed and considered the need
for an external assessment and review into whether
W3C is fulfilling its mission. They have not yet
commissioned one (2010). The result is that whilst
the web is ubiquitous in western economies,
it remains difficult to assess the successes and
failures in the process.
W3C charters working groups to deliver
specifications. Working groups usually consist
of W3C members' representatives together with
invited experts. Membership is expensive and
time consuming. The process of creating and
implementing a standard usually last years and can
take more than a decade. The public and naïve or
expert authors are not well represented.
Each charter has 'success criteria', however
it may be difficult to agree whether “Adoption of
SVG by content authors and developers” (W3C
Charter, 2006) has been met. Can it be satisfactorily
demonstrated that it is in the public interest that
representatives of corporations, who are subject
to shareholders and commercial interests, agree
standards for the web? At least there is the pos-
sibility for conflicts of interest.
HTML and XML have been widely adopted,
but have serious flaws due to the W3C process;
a few of the undesirable outcomes are described
After more than a decade, there are still no
easy to use web authoring tools that produce valid
accessible html code. Web standards such as html
have been designed in such a way that authoring
is overly complex. Vlad Alexander is a member
of the Guild of Accessible Web Designers, and
head of development at Belus Technology. He
is personally responsible for their WYSIWYG
html authoring tool. He recently stated, “Browser
vendors are (again) the only ones determining the
future direction of html, leaving authoring tool
vendors out of the conversation.” And Charles
McCathieNevile, who had been team contact for
accessibility at W3C and now works for Opera,
commented “the underlying issues you raise are
indeed incredibly important, not just for people
with disabilities but for how we build the web in
general.” (Alexander, 2010)
The W3C process through modularity meant
that the SVG working group relied on other work-
ing groups to develop necessary parts such as CSS,
XForm and the DOM. XForm was chartered to
develop an enhanced xml version of html forms,
and the DOM for keyboard navigation. Keyboard
navigation is an alternative to the mouse for people
who are blind, lack fine motor skills, or may be
using an alternative device such as a switch, and
typists may prefer to use them. XForm was not
implemented in browsers, and the DOM specifica-
tion was created after the final draft of SVG1.1
was recommended and published, and may not
now be included. Bugs for keyboard navigation
were raised with Safari-webkit, Opera and Mozilla;
and resolved in a non-standards way to provide
accessibility and functionality. However there is
currently no simple way to add a functioning form
to SVG content. In html, a form can be added
with about ten lines of code; when using SVG and
ecmascript 2000 lines were insufficient (Honte.
eu, 2009). As one commentator helpfully put it,
“don't code this, leave it to the browser.” Forms
are essential, and yet after more than a decade,
notwithstanding that the necessary browser appli-
cation code is already present, the intending author
cannot access it, because of poor connectivity.
HTML lacks the most basic features of a
GUI language (Alexander, 2009). There have
been attempts to add a GUI description for terms
such as menu, button, icon, diagram and others
missing from the html language, but they remain
workarounds. The RDF Schema for the semantic
description of Graphical User Interfaces (Peepo,
2004) is one, and in 2008, the W3C Web Ac-
cessibility Initiative working group developed a
related concept as ARIA. This defect effects the
semantic description of texts that impinge on our
ability to search for suitable resources and to adapt
content to our individual needs.
Search Nedrilad ::

Custom Search