Re: Proposal for Clarification of Group, Document Titles and document content.

Thanks for providing these specifics regarding the concerns you've been
expressing on our teleconferences. It's always good to have a punchlist!
:)

Let me respond generally for now, but from two perspectives: timeline
and substance.

Timeline:

I'm reticent to attempt overarching edits to our document when we're
still writing a good portion of its content. I agree that we have
inconsistancies that require attention. These inconsistancies, however,
are the outgrowth of organic document development. We've taken on more
content than might strictly be delivered in a proxy service. We got
there over time and that has rendered our Introduction, and arguably our
title and subtitle overcome by events.

I'm all for clarifying these things, but loathe to do so when the
details of what, exactly we're saying are still to be developed.

Substance:

Renaming our CG is hard, imo. Among other losses to such an attempt, it
would render DOJ's reference to our work outdated.

I would also argue for a broader understanding of edge as simply not
source--perhaps as one might discuss limits in calculus, i.e.
accessibility approaching the edge. To my mind "edge" has never been a
knife's edge.

Reframing our document, on the other hand, is far easier, imo. It's also
something we absolutely should take up before we finalize the report.

Best,
Janina

Jason Taylor writes:
> Hello group members:
> 
> I Wanted to bring attention to  the groups inconsistencies between the name of our group, the title of our key document, and its content. To invite input and comment.
> 
> Our group name, ???Accessibility Edge???, suggests a narrow focus on cutting-edge accessibility solutions, yet the core document, ???Overlay Capabilities , primarily suggests we discuss overlays but is attempting to delve into a wider array of post-delivery code modification technologies. These technologies range from JavaScript injections to enhance site accessibility without altering original code, to edge and browser-based solutions that adapt accessibility features to individual user needs across multiple sites.
> 
> This broader discussion in the document does not fully align with the implications of the group???s and document???s titles. Both seem to indicate a limited scope focusing on specific technical methods rather than the comprehensive range of adaptable, post-source accessibility options we actually explore, which are crucial for businesses seeking feasible alternatives to direct code updates.
> 
> To resolve these conflicts and enhance clarity, we should consider reevaluating our group???s name and the document???s title to better reflect the extensive and versatile nature of the accessibility solutions we are examining. This alignment would not only clarify the document???s intent but also ensure that the prospective reader gains a clear understanding of the group???s goals and the diverse technological approaches we advocate for enhancing accessibility under various constraints.
> 
> This revision would  aim to clearly articulate the scope of the group???s work and suggest ways to align the group???s name and document title with the content discussed, thereby resolving potential confusion and reinforcing the document???s utility to its readers.
> 
> Regards
> Jason Taylor
> 
> This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are intended only to be read or used by the named addressee(s). It is confidential and contains legally privileged information. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Apr 17, 2024, at 2:48???PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> ???ruling
> Reply-To:
> X-Operating-System: Linux opera.rednote.net 6.8.5-201.fc39.x86_64
> 
> The recent DOJ ruling on Title II cites our work:
> 
> "Overlays
> 
> "Several comments expressed concerns about public entities using
> accessibility overlays and automated checkers.369 This rule sets forth a
> technical standard for public entities??? web content and mobile apps.
> The rule does
> +not address the internal policies or procedures that public entities
> might implement to conform to the technical standard under this rule."
> 
> The DOJ ruling refused to comment on accessibility overlays and
> automated checkers. Their source? Our comments. How do we know? They
> reference the Accessibility at the Edge Community Group,
> +https://a11yedge.github.io/capabilities/.
> 
> Footnote 369
> 
> "*See *W3C, *Overlay Capabilities Inventory: Draft Community Group
> Report
> *(Feb.  12, 2024), https://a11yedge.github.io/capabilities/ "
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
> Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures    http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/
> 
> 

-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Linux Foundation Fellow
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2024 13:52:24 UTC