Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): XR Device API Review

+1

JF

On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:35 AM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> Colleagues:
>
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group concerning  our draft response to the
> Immersive Web Working Group on their requested accessibility review[1]
> of their XR Device API specification:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-webxr-20190521/
>
> ***Draft Comment***
>
> Thank you for requesting our review of your XR Device API from an
> accessibility perspective. Our response today is based on a close
> reading of this specification by two APA members[2] and a subsequent
> discussion of their findings during a regularly scheduled APA
> teleconference.[3]
>
> We have found no explicit accessibility problems in this specification,
> so we have no objection to it moving forward toward W3C recommendation
> status as currently specified.
>
> However, our review has raised a series of questions and concerns, and
> we will now look for opportunities to engage with you to establish a
> fuller understanding of accessibility opportunities and challenges in XR
> technology, as well as greater support for accessibility use cases in
> future revisions of your specifications. A significant concern for us is
> the question of how semantically rich representations of XR are to be
> provided? Semantic constructs are critical to supporting accessibility.
>
> APA wishes to acknowledge our great interest in the emerging XR
> technology.  Toward that end an initial  request for a joint meeting
> during TPAC is forthcoming. We are also happy to see the announcement of
> a W3C Workshop on "Inclusive Design for Immersive Web."[4]
>
> We look forward to working with you more directly as XR matures.
>
> ***       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, Friday 6 September.
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> NOTE: This Call for Consensus is being conducted in accordance with the
> APA Decision Policy published at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2019Jul/0012.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2019Jul/0051.html
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2019/08/28-apa-minutes.html#item04
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2019Aug/0067.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Janina Sajka
>
> 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
>
> Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:
>
>
>
> <draft-feedback>
>
>
>
>    1. While we appreciate that TTML Profiles for Internet Media Subtitles
>    and Captions 1.1 <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/> is depending on Timed
>    Text Markup Language 2 (TTML2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/>, it
>    should still include an introduction that guides the reader to a better
>    understanding of its content.  Such an introduction could respond to the
>    following questions:
>       1. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
>       captions/subtitles?
>       2. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
>       3. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a
>       transformation processor?
>
>
>
>    1. There is a general issue with the way that an author specifies
>    layout characteristics of captions and subtitles, such as font size, font
>    family, line height, background and positioning.  The spec describes the
>    approach of the author specifying a “fixed layout” for captions and
>    subtitles that the user cannot change.  However, it must be possible for
>    the user to overwrite the author’s choice of font size, or background
>    color, for example. This is necessary for accessibility reasons, in the
>    same way that browsers allow the user to change font size and background
>    color.  How can we find a good solution for these conflicting interests
>    between author and user?  We would like to get into a discussion with you
>    on this issue.
>
>
>
>    1. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to Timed Text
>    Markup Language 2 (TTML2) <https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/> section 2.3).
>    For accessibility of the spec, information such as whether an element is
>    deprecated or obsoleted should not be indicated by color (or background
>    color) alone (cf. WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1
>    <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#visual-audio-contrast-without-color>).
>
>
>
>
>    1. Section 5.1 General. The method of associating a text profile
>    document instance with an image profile document instance should be
>    specified for interoperability reasons, and not be left open to the
>    specific implementation.  Also, the association should be in both ways,
>    i.e. also from the image profile document instance to the text profile
>    document instance.
>
>
>
>    1. Section 6 Supported Features and Extensions. All font-related
>    features are prohibited for the image profile. This seems to be an
>    unnecessary restriction if the image profile contains images in SVG format
>    which could be rendered differently based on the author’s choice of font
>    characteristics.
>
>
>
>    1. Section 7.7.3 itts:forcedDisplay. This seems like a temporary
>    solution. Wouldn’t it be better to define semantic layers of information
>    that each could be made visible and invisible at runtime as appropriate for
>    the user?  For example, the user may want to see either speech-only
>    (subtitles), narration speech only (parts of subtitles), foreign-language
>    speech-only (parts of subtitles) or any combination of them.
>
>
>
>    1. Section 7.7.4 itts:altText.  While we see this feature as useful
>    for accessibility purposes, it should be mandatory for images rather than
>    recommended only. As mentioned in the spec, one could take the pertaining
>    text passage from the text profile document instance – but (1) an
>    accompanying text profile is not required, and (2) the alternative text for
>    the image could be different from the textual caption. Therefore, the
>    itts:altText element should always be specified, but it should be empty for
>    decorative images (not clear if a “decorative image” used as a caption
>    makes sense anyway). By requiring an itts:altText for every image, but
>    allowing for an empty element in case of a decorative image, we would align
>    it with the alt attribute in HTML5 for images.
>
>
>
> </draft-feedback>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gottfried
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Issue Tracker [mailto:
> sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
> An: public-apa@w3.org
> Betreff: apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media
> subtitles and captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
>
>
>
> apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and
> captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152
>
>
>
> Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com