Talk:Mission Statement

From html4all

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit]

What is a Mission Statement?

This is a statement of core group values which guides geographically scattered group members to work independently and yet collectively toward our Goals. It is the group's highest sense of purpose; our shared values.

The statement is the answer to the question "why?" What is vitally important about html4all? It is the cause or purpose -- the bigger picture -- beyond the work itself. Much of what motivates and inspires people to make meaning and take action should be contained in this "why" aspect.

Things to ask that will get at mission and purpose:

  • Why are we doing this?
  • Why does this work matter?
  • What’s most important about this work?
  • What is our unique role?
  • How do we "make a difference"?
  • Who benefits?

Laura

[edit]

September 12, 2007 Draft (Phillip, Josh, Laura collaboration)

We, the undersigned, believe that, — given the de facto position of HTML as the primary markup language for the World Wide Web — it is our responsibility, and the responsibility of every member of the W3C HTML Working Group, to ensure that HTML evolves in such a way that the content of any page in which it is correctly used is potentially accessible to all, regardless of the technology used to render the page, the primary medium through which it is rendered, and the physical and/or cognitive abilities of the person accessing the page.

The next generation of HTML must recognize that, for online information, there is:

  1. No standardized user, and
  2. No standardized device (browser or other user agent) for accessing information

Providing equitable access to web-based information creates an environment that supports all people, regardless of the methods they use to access that information.

Ensuring that HTML evolves in such as way as to define, provide, and retain features that make the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive is the socially responsible and right thing to do. It demonstrates care for providing access to information for those who would otherwise be locked out and lose their opportunity to use the web. It aims to reach all people, extending the range of communication.

To this end, we believe that HTML is, and must remain, a language through which the semantics of the page are expressed and we equally believe that presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics.

[edit]

Feedback on September 12, 2007 Version From:

[edit]

Philip

"I would like the stress re-instated around "semantics" in "a language through which the semantics of the page are expressed"; no other changes needed before I could agree with it."

Suggested verbiage: "regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities or disabilities"

[edit]

John

<p>I would perhaps also like to see something to the effect that "...the evolution of the language should address both mainstream (80/20) and edge-case requirements, and not be directed by numbers alone.

[edit]

Leif

"Possible disagreement with the content:

«and we equally believe that presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics». Is this a statement about <B> and <I> and other presumably presentational elements? About <FONT>? Is it related to the <ASIDE> element?"

[edit]

Other things

  1. I feel that the paragraph «Ensuring that HTML evolves ... [etc]» could benefit from a «therefore» in «is THEREFORE the socially responcible ting to...»
  2. The sentence «It demonstrates care ...»: what does the «It» refer to? And in «It aims to reach al... », the «It» is even more unclear to me.
  3. The part «must remain, a language through which the semantics of the page are expressed» feels like a phrase which is debating with someone about something. But I am not certain with whom, about what. (And if it is related to FONT, B, I, then the word «remain» is wrong.)

I agree very much with Steven (for something much less verbose).

[edit]

Gez

"The mission statement is too difficult to understand. Missions statements are supposed to be concise and easy to understand. The first paragraph is one sentence, and too difficult to parse."

[edit]

Steve

"I would like to see the mission statement as something much less verbose:

Example: "To ensure that HTML supports equality of access for users with disabilities"

"A short concise mission statement I think makes it easier for people, with diverse opinions about how the goal is to be achieved, to agree. It also does not lock people in to a particular stance on any issue."

[edit]

Jane

"I agree with Gez about mission statement length and conciseness, but as-is works for me."

[edit]

Catherine

"I would like there to be mention of persons with disabilities in the Mission Statement. I understand the track that has been taken with regards to the HTML for all idea and I will not get into the universal access vs. accessibility debate but it seems to me that we started this group because HTML5 was proposing things that negatively impacted on accessibility issues for persons with disabilities in particular. It therefore does not make sense to me that we do not mention persons with disabilities once in the mission statement."

Explicitly include persons with disabilities

[edit]

Reply to Catherine from Phil (part-author)

"Persons with disabilities" are covered by the part that reads "regardless of [...] the physical and/or cognitive abilities of the person accessing the page."

We refer to "abilities" rather than "disabilities", since not all (for example) blind people regard their blindness as a disability.

[edit]
Second reply to Catherine from Phil

Phil suggests using "... regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities or disabilities"

[edit]

Roger

Agrees with Steve's example above 'To ensure that HTML supports equality of access for users with disabilities'

"though I would also like to see something about 'saving semantics' in there.

How about:

'To ensure that HTML supports equality of access for people with disabilities and that its ability to express semantics are strengthened.'

Universality and device independence seem to be covered by the draft already so I don't think it's critical for html4all to have that in its mission statement. Should things start to go downhill on that front as well though I think we should cover those too."

[edit]

Patrick

"regardless of the technology used to render the page, the primary medium through which it is rendered,"

I'm not sure this makes sense, unless I'm misunderstanding it. It's the source HTML that needs to have the potential (necessary hooks, attributes, etc) to be accessible. Once it's being rendered by a technology, it's down to that user agent to expose that information to potential AT and such. the language spec itself can't guarantee this...that's the job of UAAG. Extreme case for the second part of that sentence: what if pages are being printed? The printouts themselves can't convey the information to blind users, for instance...so it can't be about the primary medium or the technology, but the source format itself.

otherwise, this sounds too much like universal access, but with unrealistic expectations placed just on the language.

"To this end, we believe that HTML is, and must remain, a language through which the semantics of the page are expressed and we equally believe that presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics."

This sounds too limited, and might not explicitly cover things like headers attributes etc. Maybe:

"To this end, we believe that HTML is, and must remain, a language through which the semantics of the page are expressed, that presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics, and that the language must allow for explicit associations of related pieces of content when this association aids converying content and content relationships to users."

[edit]

Laura

I agree with Patrick on reworking the first and last paragraph somewhat. Simplifying would be good too.

[edit]

Debi

I'm okay with it as is.

[edit]

Jason

I would suggest adding "the language or languages in which the page is written" as well, to embrace internationalization as an integral part of this vision.

[edit]

Mockup Version 1

[edit]

Our mission is to ensure that the next generation of HTML

  1. Supports equivalent access for people regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities or disabilities, and
  2. Strengthens its capacity to express semantics.

[edit]

We undertake this endeavor because

  • It is the socially responsible and right thing to do.
  • Not providing access to information for those who would otherwise be locked out and lose their opportunity to use the web is wrong.
  • HTML 5 must aim to extend the range of communication and make the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive.
  • The work of the HTML Working Group should go beyond a merely commercial or fiscal context.
  • Numbers alone must not be the driving factor for language decisions. Both mainstream (80/20) and edge-case requirements must be addressed.
  • For online information, there is:
    1. No standardized user, and
    2. No standardized device (browser or other user agent) for accessing information.
  • Presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics.
  • The language must allow for explicit associations of related pieces of content when this association aids conveying content and content relationships to users.

Signed,...

[edit]

Discussion on Mockup Version 1

Mockup Version 1 is an attempt to simplify while still incorporating feedback. Is this an improvement or not? What should be changed? Please chime in by posting your thoughts here on Mockup Version 1. All comments appreciated.

I'm not sure how to get in Jason's suggestion of "the language or languages in which the page is written". Thoughts?

I added info from Josh's social context discussion in the Goals doc to this Mockup, because it seems to fit better here than there. Since social issues are covered here I removed them over there. Social context is more about the "Why" that the "What". Is this an improvement? Advise appreciated.

[edit]

Josh's Notes on the social context of HTML 5:

There is some degree of social responsibility on the part of participants of the HTML Working Group because rather like citizens of a country, users of technologies like the web are also its stakeholders. So html4all feels there is a degree of social responsibility which should inform the development of the specification. We all wish to ensure that HTML 5 reaches the highest standard possible, as it is a language that will filter into users lives in a profound way due to our societies increasing reliance on technology.

We believe that the work of the HTML Working Group should go beyond a merely commercial or fiscal context and the development of the language should transcend any mere commercial imperative so it is truly inclusive. ~ Josh

Also if you have other ideas feel free create create another Mockup Version, here on this talk page.

Thanks! ~Laura

Zara: First, wow, thanks Laura for all the work you have been doing, I am humbled by your efforts.

Second, I think this a great improvement. And while I understand the need to content everyone, I think it might be worth considering a few things:

As others have pointed out, I agree that the mission statement should be as short as possible and as straightforward and easy to understand for anyone as possible.

So, there might be certain things that might be a bit too specific to fit into the mission statement which as I understand should answer some very basic questions like who, what, why, etc.

I think that some other stuff could be part of a separate document linked to from the mission statement, something like "our vision of the future of HTML" that could include, for example, things like:

  1. Presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics.
  2. The language must allow for explicit associations of related pieces of content when this association aids conveying content and content relationships to users.

Just thinking out loud but I think we may be trying to say too much in one single statement when there is certainly possibility to have a set of documents that are part of the "html4all package", so to speak.

Lief: So, was those two points about 'presentational elements' and 'explicit associations' meant to be in that separate document - or?

I also would like to know why 'Presentational elements' are singled out. Who are these elements? What is it about? In my view, the problem on the historic and current web, few if any elements are problematic. It is how authors use some of them that is problematic. E.g. if one use a P B instead of a H2 etc.

And as for the explicit associations - are that comment about e.g. @HEADERS/@ID? Or is it also about new elements?

Zara:

"So, was those two points about 'presentational elements' and 'explicit associations' meant to be in that separate document - or?"

Yes.

But the idea was not exhaustive, I just picked out on the fly what I felt was in the text very too specialised. It could include any and all things that concern what the group feels the language should be and should do.

This in itself would probably be quite a challenge but by functioning this way, it would permit us to at least get out a mission statement that should be, in my humble opinion, a simple values document (stating what, how, who and especially why) and a starting point to all the rest that comes after it, i.e. goals, vision for the technology, action plan, whatever, etc.

[edit]

From Laura to Zara:

zara wrote:

> First, wow, thanks Laura for all the work you have been doing, I am humbled by your efforts.

You are welcome. And thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

> So, there might be certain things that might be a bit too specific to fit into the mission statement which as I understand should answer some very basic questions like who, what, why, etc.

I agree.

  • Mission statement should answer the question "Why?". It is core group values which guides geographically scattered group members to work independently and yet collectively toward our Goals. It is the group's highest sense of purpose; our shared values.
  • Goals answer the question "What?" They are statements describing what html4all hopes to accomplish. What are we going to do? They list what actions we intend to take. They refer to things we need to undertake to achieve the Mission of html4all.

References:

> I think that some other stuff could be part of a separate document linked to from the mission statement, something like "our vision of the future of HTML" that could include, for example, things like:

  • Presentational elements have no place in a language intended to communicate medium-neutral semantics.
  • The language must allow for explicit associations of related pieces of content when this association aids conveying content and content relationships to users."

> Just thinking out loud but I think we may be trying to say too much in one single statement when there is certainly possibility to have a set of documents that are part of the "html4all package", so to speak.

Yes, a vision statement would help outline what we want HTML to be. It would concentrate on the future; be a source of inspiration; a vivid description of desired outcomes that inspires, energize and help create a mental picture of our target; articulate dreams and hopes for your the future; remind us of what we are trying to build.

Great idea, Catherine. That is a terrific start for a vision statement. I added a page to the wiki. Jason's suggestion about internationalization might fit well there too.

> I will add these ideas to the wiki. You deserve a break :)

Thank you, very much!

zara wrote:

> This in itself would probably be quite a challenge but by functioning this way,
> it would permit us to at least get out a mission statement that should be, in
>my humble opinion, a simple values document (stating what, how, who and especially why)
> and a starting point to all the rest that comes after it, i.e. goals, vision for the technology, action plan, whatever, etc.

I agree.

[edit]

From Laura to Leif

Leif wrote:

Thanks for the reply, Leif . Much appreciated.

> I also would like to know why 'Presentational elements' are singled
> out. Who are these elements? What is it about? In my view, the problem
> on the historic and current web, few if any elements are problematic.
> It is how authors use some of them that is problematic. E.g. if one
> use a <P><B> instead of a <H2> etc.

Phil may be the person to answer this question. That was part of his starting point for the mission statement. His September 7th message said:

> May I offer a suggestion (as a starting point) ?
>
> "We, the undersigned, believe that -- given the de facto position
> of HTML as /the/ primary markup language for the World Wide
> Web -- it is essential that HTML evolve in such a way
> as to ensure that the contents of any page in which it is
> correctly used are potentially accessible to all, regardless
> of the technology used to render the page, the primary medium
> through which it is rendered, and the physical and/or cognitive
> abilities of the person accessing the page. To this end,
> we believe that HTML is, and must remain, a language through
> which the /semantics/ of the page are expressed, and that
> any feature that seeks to express the intended physical
> appearance of the page (regardless of medium) has no place
> whatsoever in HTML.

> And as for the explicit associations - are that comment about e.g.
> @HEADERS/@ID? Or is it also about new elements?

It is more about headers/id which Patrick's suggested in his comment

[edit]

From Laura to Roger

Roger wrote:

> I've never edited a Wiki, so I'm replying ;-).

Thanks for the reply, Roger. Much appreciated.

I never edited a wiki before I joined the working group either. I've just been teaching myself as I go along. If you are interested in giving it a whirl, I put together some Wiki Tips Tricks information for you and everyone else. If not that's fine too.

> Yes, it's an improvement. It's still a bit long, but splitting it
> into two parts makes it more readable.

I think it is a bit long too. If we put the last two bullets in the vision statement (see reply to Zara above) it should help. What do you think?

I put together Mockup Version 2. Does it say what we need to say?

[edit]

Mockup Version 2

[edit]

Our mission is to ensure that the next generation of HTML

  1. Supports equal access for people regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities or disabilities, and
  2. Strengthens its capacity to express semantics.

[edit]

We undertake this endeavour because

  • It is the socially responsible and right thing to do.
  • Not providing access to information for those who would otherwise be locked out and lose their opportunity to use the web is wrong.
  • HTML 5 must aim to extend the range of communication and make the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive.
  • The work of the HTML Working Group should go beyond a merely commercial or fiscal context.
  • Numbers alone must not be the driving factor for language decisions. Both mainstream (80/20) and edge-case requirements must be addressed.
  • For online information, there is:
    1. No standardized user, and
    2. No standardized device (browser or other user agent) for accessing information.

Signed,

Inaugural Members

[edit]

Related documents

[edit]

Discussion on Mockup Version 2

Please add your thoughts on version 2 here. All comments are welcome. Thanks! ~Laura

[edit]

From Josh

Good Stuff Laura. Thanks for all your hard work. It looks fine to me. Cheers Josh

[edit]

Reply Josh to From Laura

Thank you, Josh for checking it. - LauraCarlson 07:37, 24 September 2007 (PDT)

[edit]

From Phil

RE: Mission Statement: Mockup Version 2

[edit]

Reply Phil to From Laura

RE: Mission Statement: Mockup Version 2

[edit]

Mockup Version 3

[edit]

Our mission is to ensure that future generations of HTML

  1. Support equal access for people regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities or disabilities, and
  2. Strengthen its capacity to express semantics.

[edit]

We undertake this endeavour because

  • We believe that ensuring access to information for those who would otherwise be locked out and lose their opportunity to use the Web is the socially responsible and right thing to do.
  • The primary markup language of the World Wide Web must aim to extend the range of communication and make the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive.
  • Numbers alone must not be the driving factor for technology decisions. Both mainstream (80/20) and edge-case requirements must be addressed, because for online information, there is:
    1. No standardized user, and
    2. No standardized device (browser or other user agent) for accessing information.

Signed,

Inaugural Members

[edit]

Related documents

[edit]

Discussion on Mockup Version 3

Please add your thoughts on version 3 here. All comments are welcome. Thanks! - LauraCarlson

Zara: I think we are indeed getting close, thanks Laura. May I suggest the following small changes in the second part for everyone's consideration ?

We undertake this endeavour because

  • We believe that ensuring access to information for those who would otherwise be locked out and lose their opportunity to use the Web is the socially responsible and right thing to do.
  • The primary mark-up language of the World Wide Web must aim to extend the range of communication and make the web more accessible, universal, and inclusive.
  • Numbers alone must not be the driving factor for technology decisions. Both mainstream (80/20) and edge-case requirements must be addressed, because for online information, there is:
  1. No standardized user, and
  2. No standardized device (browser or other user agent) for accessing information.

So, to explain my proposed modifications:

In the first bulleted item, I added "We believe" as I think it could make a stronger statement. I also inversed the sentence and removed the "simply wrong" part because I just felt the sentence was a bit repetitive. I also replaced the verb "provide" with "ensure" because, again, I felt it made a stronger statement.

In the third bulleted item, I changed the word "language" for "technology" because I felt that the sentence could have a broader scope and technology just seemed more fitting.

Anyway, these are minor proposals and I would feel comfortable with the text if my changes were not retained.

Hi Catherine,

Excellent suggestions! I've incorporated them into mockup version 3 above.

Thank you!

LauraCarlson 12:26, 26 September 2007 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://html4all.org/wiki/index.php/Talk:Mission_Statement"
Personal tools