Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): Request re Reporting Spec

+1




Steve Noble
Instructional Designer, Accessibility
Psychometrics & Testing Services

Pearson

502 969 3088
steve.noble@pearson.com<mailto:steve.noble@pearson.com>

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/xFjftXlwMzpdFeTtDgc4_IwyMYm8ThtQHIsgElkS8fyiCO2M7ZM0WaO7r2uy-bmKAe5S2sIcg7d-mwbD4ArkJhyafHke-SgJ2ui8DoGoBhZw4YIyWeK3LUozNMwBff4JR2tdu8nZ2fvoNvkkA06KNw9-s3P9UvYsHSTphHss6X0=s0-d-e1-ft#http://accessibility4school.pearson.com/access/4c49fe02-e204-46b4-b6f0-82f5a3f159cb/pearson-accessibility.jpg]

________________________________
From: Janina Sajka (janina@rednote.net) <janina@rednote.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 3:27 PM
To: Accessible Platform Architectures Administration <public-apa-admin@w3.org>
Subject: Call for Consensus (CfC): Request re Reporting Spec

Colleagues:

This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
Architectures (APA) Working Group testing whether we have group
consensus to approach the Web Performance Working Group[1] to explore
whether their Reporting API technology might be usefully harnessed for
accessibility purposes. The proposed outreach message follows:

***beginning of suggested Message***

Colleagues:

The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group has again reviewed your specification:

https://www.w3.org/TR/reporting/

We have no issues from the perspective of our horizontal review responsibility. That is not why we're writing you at this time.

We have realized that there may be multiple ways to use your specification in support of conformance to various accessibility standards specifications. Would you be amenable to exploring an Accessibility endpoint addition to your specification with us?

We can conceive of many ways to use such a mechanism. For example, the accessibility endpoint could be used by assistive technology (AT), user agents, browser extensions/plugins, and automated web scanning tools to report on specific failures to meet WCAG success criteria, especially where today's dynamic content is invisible to current
standard auditing processes. This may align with or build on existing work from Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT). Perhaps it could also be used to capture accessibility feedback or problem reports from visitors to the site.

These are likely best explained in a teleconference setting by way of an initial check to ensure our understanding and expectations match.

If you agree our proposal has merit, we would look for ways to specify the initial endpoint and any additional aspects as may be relevant.

What do you think? Is this a reasonable application of your technology? Might we schedule an hour sometime soon to explore the possibilities with you and discuss next steps if moving forward appears reasonable?

Thanking you in advance for your consideration of our request,

Janina Sajka & Matthew Atkinson
APA Co-Chairs

***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 1 June.

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] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/webperf

--

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