Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): Accessibility Checklist

And to add a word of support, it's very good to see this checklist 
progressing, and my thanks to Michael and the WG for getting it to this 
stage.

My reason for making the suggestions below are in part so that when the 
checklist first goes for wider review, the relevance for spec developers 
might be clearer from the get-go.

My guess is that the more strictly web content issues may not be as 
frequently encountered in specs, nor as compelling as some of the 
interop and API issues.

One further thought, with regard to the Intro:  I suggest that the Intro 
include at least a short paragraph along the lines of a "how to use this 
checklist," that would provide a minimum of orientation for spec 
developers unfamiliar with this tool and/or completely unfamiliar with 
accessibility. Thoughts about what to include in that (I think that 
these could be added with very brief text, keeping a pretty terse Intro) 
: 1) add a link to the "Web for All" part of W3C's mission; 2) link to 
one or two basic intro pieces on web accessibility, maybe including the 
user scenario section of "How People with Disabilties Use the Web"; 3) 
point out that the more detailed WTAG Editor's draft 
http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/wtag.html has more background for issues 
that earn a check-mark, and if possible, link from the checklist items 
to the relevant background in the WTAG document; 4) make it clearer that 
the checklist is to facilitate WGs' early planning on how to meet 
accessibility needs, but not to substitute for an accessibility review 
by APA WG; 5) put out the welcome mat by encouraging WGs to contact APA 
WG for any questions at any time (if that's a realistic offer) and 
especially to be sure to reach out to APA "X" # of weeks in advance of a 
spec's hitting CR (unless that latter part is now sufficiently 
systematized that you don't need a reminder on the "reach out" step).

Thanks!

- Judy

On 2/8/2017 11:59 PM, Judy Brewer wrote:
> Hi Janina,  > > A quick note on review of this, hopefully just under the wire: > > 
- I recommend updating the the intro section to remove PFWG > references 
and provide more context about purpose > > - Also re-ordering sections 
of the checklist to move the web content > portions further down the 
list, and start with items relating more to > typical issues that APA 
comments on in horizontal charter reviews, > especially interoperability 
and API issues > > - Also populating those latter categories a bit more. 
 > > Thanks, > > - Judy > > > On 2/7/2017 7:30 AM, Janina Sajka wrote: 
 >> +1 >> >> Janina Sajka writes: >>> Colleagues: >>> >>> This is a Call 
for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform >>> Architectures (APA) 
Working Group on obtaining wider W3C review >>> comments to our draft 
Accessibility Checklist: >>> >>> >>> 
http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html >>> >>> *    ACTION TO 
TAKE >>> >>> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as >>> 
statements of support via email. Silence will be interpreted as >>> 
support, though messages of support are certainly welcome. >>> >>> If 
you object to this proposed action, or have comments >>> concerning this 
proposal, please respond by replying on list to >>> this message no 
later than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, >>> Wednesday 8 February. >>> 
 >>> Janina >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Janina Sajka,    Phone:    
+1.443.300.2200 >>> sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net Email:    
janina@rednote.net >>> >>> Linux Foundation Fellow Executive Chair, 
Accessibility Workgroup: >>> http://a11y.org >>> >>> The World Wide Web 
Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative >>> (WAI) Chair, 
Accessible Platform Architectures >>> http://www.w3.org/wai/apa >>> >