W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > September 2015

Re: HTML A11y TF feedback on Web Payments WG charter

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:32:02 -0500
Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3D131FCB-C1ED-4037-946F-8C49B84DE2EC@w3.org>
To: lwatson@paciellogroup.com

> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello WP IG,

Hi Léonie, thank you for the comments. I have some notes inline.

> 
> You kindly asked the TF to look at the proposed WP WG charter, and share
> comments. We think the charter represents accessibility in a positive and
> practical way, and would just like to suggest a couple of changes.
> 
> In the opening "mission statement" section, the benefits of reducing
> fragmentation are listed. It would be good for accessibility to be included
> in this list, perhaps by changing this benefit:
> 
> "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for consumers as a
> result of increased choice and standardized flows and experiences."
> 
> To something like:
> 
> "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for consumers as a
> result of increased choice and standardized flows and accessible
> experiences.”

Did the accessibility task force discuss how the chartered work of this group
would create more accessible experiences?

> In section 3.2 (Optional deliverables) a card payments recommendation is
> proposed. In the list of things such a recommendation could achieve, it
> would be good to mention accessibility. Perhaps by adding the following:
> 
> "Demonstrate how to present a debit-pull digital payment scheme interface
> that is accessible and usable by consumers.”

One thing to note about this charter is that we say "This group is chartered
to standardize programming interfaces; not user interfaces.” So when
you say “present an interface that is accessible” do you mean “a user
interface” ? I want to be sure that statements in the charter are self-consistent.

> The last thing is a minor nit, but in section 4.2 (Other W3C groups), should
> it be APA instead of PF?

If that group exists when we launch this one, we can make that change. Until then,
I think we should stay with our current inclusive verbiage:
  "Protocols and Formats Working Group (and successor)”

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447




Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 16:32:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 September 2015 16:32:06 UTC