When I constructed a comic last week paying homage to the HTML5 Super Friends, it was not my intent to enter into a dread bargain with the force known as “continuity”, a dark master that requires its fearful slaves to create sequential plots that follow chronologically from one to another. It’s largely been my goal to avoid such, due to the impact it can have on my ability to crack a joke. I could argue that making the HTML5 spec seem humorous is enough of a challenge. Enfolding it in some sort of continuous plot at the same time is an effort that largely exceeds any kick I get out of making funny squirrel drawings.

Nonetheless, by the time this weekend had rolled about, I had been exposed to some commentary about the announcement and concerns the Super Friends had produced, given by one Mr. Ian Hickson, esquire. I largely have told myself that I poke fun at Hixie far too often in proportion to what any man deserves. After all, he is putting a lot of large effort into HTML5, which clearly wouldn’t exist in any usable state yet without that effort. Yet, his commentary seemed so deliciously full of hubris and petulance that I was physically incapable of not dressing him in Lex Luthor’s strange purple jumpsuit and assembling around him a legion of foes for today’s comic (which also features Anne van Kesteren and Michael(TM) Smith).

Here is the deal: By and large, web designers (aka: authors) have been largely skeptical about how well HTML5 is going to meet our needs. This isn’t entirely surprising, as our major exposure to HTML5 has been watching browser vendors and accessibility and/or microformat specialists duke it out over any number of seemingly arbitrary issues. Taken at a distance, or even up close when swallowed whole (have fun with the mailing list if you’re a masochist), it could create the impression that HTML5 is some sort of dark Endorian jungle, filled with hostile ewoks lying in wait for well-meaning designers to walk past, oblivious of their gruesome fate.

What the HTML5 Super Friends did, with a very public, non-mailing list announcement about their perusal and acceptance of HTML5, is create a sense that all will be well for designers as HTML5 slips closer to the (possibly too soon) date for Last Call. When Jeffrey Zeldman, Eric Meyer, and every other notable name on their list, said “Hey, HTML5 is cool, come on in the water,” they started a large ripple through the design-o-sphere that is bound to be felt very sharply in the dwindling days remaining in this year. What helped that ripple wasn’t just a blanket statement of “It’s all good,” because that would be a lie, and most of us are smart enough to know it.

Rather, they exposed their concerns, in plain language. They then said, despite these differences, which we hope are addressed, we still like what we see.

Call me a sheep if it helps you feel better about yourself, but that sort of critical support for HTML5 has greatly increased my own comfort with the spec as it solidifies.

So, when Ian Hickson, HTML5 editor, gets his knickers bunched up in a fit because the Super Friends decided to do a posting on their various sites/blogs/whatevers about the topic first, then in due process submit their concerns “formally” to the WHATWG mailing list… I can’t help but find the words “petty” or “egotistical” floating to the front of my mind.

To answer your questions, Ian: Yes, the WHATWG’s public mailing list is in fact public. However, it is not nearly as public to the target audience of the Super Friends’ efforts (aka: web designers) as their very blogs/feeds/etc. They are engaging in the process of getting buy-in from designers, which HTML5 has been slow on, rather than the WHATWG, which I will wager is already really well sold on this whole HTML5 doohicky. There is no shame delivered, nor insult intended, by their actions in publicly (and in their own preferred fashion) declaring that HTML5 is good, but could use some tweaking.

So, good sir, I recommend you calm down, take a deep breath, and stop being snippy about the spec every time there’s a public or private discussion of HTML5 that did not directly involve yourself. We’re all painfully aware at this point that the spec won’t change without our power-invested Leviathan’s approval.

Today’s comic references two very important topics that everyone should know about.

The first involves Bruce Lawson and snogging. In relation to point #2, I tweeted this. He responded with this. I find the word snogging hilarious, so it went downhill from there, with mental images of Ian Hickson and John Foliot getting hot and heavy.

In those mental images, Ian is asked to shave.

The second topic, which quite inadvertently spawned the first, involves HTML5, ARIA and the apparent lack of peace between the groups responsible for developing each. In his post Alternate Text in HTML5, Bruce bravely discusses his opinion on the topic despite his stated delicate nature and then suggests a group hug, and perhaps a sing along.

By comment #2, Anne van Kesteren has dropped the thunder and brought back the fighting.

Here’s a recap: Blind people can’t see. Blind web users, as a result, need some aids to make sense of things we’d take for granted, even when screen readers are taken into account. Pictures need some form of alternate text and tables need some sort of summary to help give them the scope of the data that’s about to be read to them (as just two examples.)

The WAI-CG has methods for solving these sorts of problems. These solutions exist in HTML4. However, the WHAT WG, with what I presume is a desire to keep code simple, want to do accessibility their own way. To prove their point, they lean on surveys of existing web content which show little adoption of the accessibility features being debated. They also decline to accept the advice of accessibility experts with real-life experience interacting with disabled users.

For a bunch of smart people, that’s pretty stupid.

Actually, that’s stupid for stupid people, so it’s outright dead-brained for smart people.

Why would surveys of existing content prove the effectiveness of the features when used? All it proves is that accessibility awareness needs to be raised among developers. To figure out whether the proper use of these features improve accessibility for the blind, I’d suggest talking to a blind web user.

As John Foliot points out in his comments in Bruce’s post, by all accounts Ian has not actually received any input from a blind person on the accessibility features he is denying.

I’m not an expert in this field, so I’m not going to propose solutions. I do propose, however, that the WHAT WG listens to the experts instead of continuing to cling to their “not invented here” mentality and looking to their own interests before those of the community that absolutely relies on accessibility to make use of the web.

In other words, stop being jerks.

Here’s a couple of related links to the topic in addition to those shown above that might make a good read: Mechanism to Summarize a Table, maintained by Laura Carlson. HTML5 and WAI-ARIA by Anne van Kesteren (the real good stuff is in the comments). Also, make sure to check out the comments in Bruce’s post. There’s a lot of good material in there to get a feel for positions and justifications.

Edit: Corrected the authorship of the Mechanism to Summarize a Table link, based on John’s correction below. Sorry for that, Laura!