Re: Followup re W3C & BCI

Hello, Russell:

Thanks for your prompt response. It's good to know you're tracking
WAI-Adapt via our minutes, and we're pleased you continue interested in
helping develop the registry specification we're expecting to develop. A
few quick comments ...

*	The registry specification will likely not be a source of actual
*	graphical AAC symbols. Our current thinking is that what's
*	needed in a W3C normative specification is the BCI index number
*	plus the text of the concept that number conveys. The text, of
*	course, should extend to multiple languages somehow. But, we can
*	start with just English, or perhaps English and French inasmuch
*	as BCI is a Canadian enterprise.

So, any version you can easily provide now would help us understand what
the spec might need to contain. An excel (or even a Google Sheet) would
be helpful for thoughts on the design of the registry specification.
Thanks in advance for whatever you can easily forward.

Regarding the legal memorandum--seems neither of us has a template
document ready to hand! Regretably, getting W3C legal attention may take
time, so if there is something that could serve as a starter from BCI,
that would only help.

Best,

Janina

Russell Galvin writes:
>    Hi Janina,
>    Yes, by all means please send us an agreement to sign. I have discussed
>    this with the BCI board and there was a very positive response.
>    I agree that the PDF is probably not the preferred format for the
>    reference document. For various reasons - which I can go over in detail
>    if you like - CSV is also not ideal.
>    We do maintain a spreadsheet file that refers by ID to the symbols
>    which are physically kept on storage media. For the last couple of
>    years we have been using Google Workspace as our shared work
>    environment with the symbols being displayed in a Sheets document using
>    the image() function to reference the symbols by URI from
>    blissymbolics.net which works well. It's also easy to change the format
>    of the displayed symbol by just changing which version that is
>    referenced. No need to run a macro to physically load all the symbols
>    into the document at once. But, it should be no problem to generate
>    self-contained Excel docs like that if you prefer as we have done it in
>    the past.
>    Yes, I am available to work on the registry specification. Not on a
>    full time basis but I should have sufficient time available to do what
>    is needed. I have not been attending the Monday meetings as they seem
>    to be of a more general nature but I see you discussed BCI's
>    involvement with the registry today.
>    Best regards,
>    Russell
> 
>    On 01/08/2022 9:32 a.m., Janina Sajka wrote:
> 
> Dear Russell:
> 
> I'm following up with you regarding the advancement of the WAI-Adapt
> Content Module 1.0 to Candidate Recommendation Status in the W3C
> process.[1]
> 
> The WAI-Adapt Task Force of APA believes we're ready to advance and
> we've initiated the process with the W3C Director, as W3C policy
> requires.
> 
> There are just a few concerns the Director has expressed which we need
> to resolve to move forward. We believe you can help resolve them, which
> is why I'm writing you at this time.
> 
> 1.)     We need to exchange some kind of formal understanding document
> that would keep the BCI and W3C attorneys happy. I suspect we have no
> real disagreements, it's just an 'i' we need to dot, and a 't' to cross,
> as it were.
> 
> 2.)     The Director suggests we normatively reference the BCI PDF index
> of concepts, and we could do so, but we suspect that's not the most
> accessible version of that table. We note, for example, that you also
> maintain it in Excel. That would be significantly more accessible, and
> something we'd prefer to PDF--until such time as our W3C Registry spec
> takes over this feature function. But, an even more accessible version
> might be CSV. Is that a practical possibility?
> 
> 3.)     As we move this module to CR, we're hoping to get to work
> writing the registry specification. We're hoping we can conclude that
> specification in a matter of a few months, but we'd very much need your
> help on that. Is it likely you could be available to us as we work on a
> registry specification through the remainder of 2022? The ideal
> situation would be to have the registry specification finished before we
> advance the Content Module beyond CR.
> 
> Trusting this note finds you well and looking forward to effecting this
> long awaited work with you,
> 
> Janina

-- 

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 Monday, 8 August 2022 10:45:39 UTC