W3C

Results of Questionnaire ISSUE-96: Removing the progress Element - Straw Poll for Objections

The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.

This questionnaire was open from 2010-05-12 to 2010-05-19.

6 answers have been received.

Jump to results for question:

  1. Objections to the Change Proposal to Remove the progress Element
  2. Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep New Elements and Attributes

1. Objections to the Change Proposal to Remove the progress Element

We have a Change Proposal to remove the progress element. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to Remove the progress Element
Silvia Pfeiffer It is a fairly common need for Web pages to create progress bars. The native availability of a progress element together with native accessibility support for it will reduce the need to use javascript libraries or build your own javascript code for it, at the same time making sure accessibility is provided. Less javascript will make web page display more efficient. (The progress element will of course not completely remove the need for JS, but reduce it massively for creating a progress bar.)
Larry Masinter
David Singer - Progress indicators are a common and useful UI idiom in a wide range of native applications. HTML5 should serve this idiom directly.
- Progress indicators are one of the basic control types supported on both Mac OS X and iPhone OS. They are part of a complete modern UI toolkit. HTML5 should serve applications by providing a complete set of fundamental controls.
- Many operating systems have a very specific platform-native look for progress indicators. While some content authors want to make web applications with custom-looking controls for everything, others want to match the platform native look. Often they try to do this by building controls out of image pieces in the hopes of targeting a single platform, causing a mismatch on other platforms or when the original target platform changes. The <progress> element is the only proposed way to get a progress indicator with a truly native look and feel.
- The "HTML5 Superfriends" group of Web standards experts supports the <progress> element, demonstrating support in the authoring community.
- Semantic elements lead to improved accessibility. The HTML WG Accessibility Task Force has endorsed the <progress> element and opposed the call to remove it.
- The <progress> element has an initial experimental implementation in WebKit. Implementation experience shows that it is useful and beneficial.
- Implementors of other browser engines, including Gecko and Presto, have expressed interest in implementing this element.

Given the interest from authors, implementors and the accessibility community in keeping it, the <progress> element should not be removed.
Cynthia Shelly See my comment on <details>. These behavioral user interface elements are one of the key advances of HTML 5 and should not be removed.
Jonas Sicking I object to removing the <progress> element as it would result in missing out of the positive effects listed in http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/KeepNewElements#Positive_Effects

My experience working with web authors for several years is that they tend to do what is easy, whereas accessibility often ends up coming second due to time constraints and unawareness.

By including the semantic <progress> element, we both make it easier for developers to do what they want, since they'll need to use less markup and script, while automatically getting a good accessibility story.

The change proposal to remove <progress> seems to have no solution for what HTML editors like nvu or dreamweaver should do, making it impossible for such tools to properly support the functionality that <progress>s supplies. At least without resorting to hacks that don't work in a cross-editor manner.

I think it's very unlikely that as many people would add proper ARIA attributes, as would use the <figure> element. I think this is the reason that the WAI-ARIA specification encourages developers of markup languages to add semantic elements and explicitly declares ARIA as a bridge technology. I also think this is why the HTML Accessibility TF has endorsed the <figure> element.
Laura Carlson

2. Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep New Elements and Attributes

We have a Change Proposal to keep several newly-introduced semantic elements, attributes, and controls. If you have strong objections to adopting this Change Proposal specifically with respect to the progress element, please state your objections below.

Keep in mind, you must actually state an objection, not merely cite someone else. If you feel that your objection has already been adequately addressed by someone else, then it is not necessary to repeat it.

Details

Responder Objections to the Change Proposal to Keep New Elements and Attributes
Silvia Pfeiffer
Larry Masinter (see objection on ISSUE-90; lack of transition plan and unambiguous support at this point => remove to allow HTML5 to reach rec realistically).
David Singer
Cynthia Shelly
Jonas Sicking
Laura Carlson Rationale is at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2010May/att-0024/progress.txt

More details on responses

  • Silvia Pfeiffer: last responded on 13, May 2010 at 05:49 (UTC)
  • Larry Masinter: last responded on 13, May 2010 at 20:52 (UTC)
  • David Singer: last responded on 18, May 2010 at 18:35 (UTC)
  • Cynthia Shelly: last responded on 18, May 2010 at 18:42 (UTC)
  • Jonas Sicking: last responded on 19, May 2010 at 18:59 (UTC)
  • Laura Carlson: last responded on 20, May 2010 at 01:54 (UTC)

Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.


Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders

WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire

Report issues on GitHub project w3c/wbs-design (preferred) or by mail to sysreq.