RE: [EXTERNAL] Call for Consensus (CfC): Request re Reporting Spec

I think the proposed text should be amended, but I agree with the essence of the suggestion to invite further exploration of the opportunities that the reporting API offers. My modifications may be considered editorial, but I suspect they cross the line and that they may actually be substantive.

1. A reporting endpoint is defined in the specification as a location to which reports may be sent. See section 2.1.1. We are not proposing to define new endpoints. Rather, we are suggesting the possibility of one or more new "report types" (section 2.1.2). A report type "specifies the set of data that is contained in the body of a report" (section 2.1.2). The proposed comment should be revised to use the correct terminology (i.e., "report type" rather than "endpoint").

2. Section 2.1.2 indicates that a report type may be defined "in this spec or others". I think the APA comment should reflect these possibilities by acknowledging that one or more accessibility-related report types may be specified elsewhere. We are not necessarily asking for new report types to be added to the current specification. In fact, it appears based on a quick browse of the document that the current specification doesn't define any report types at all. It only establishes the framework and the mechanism. Section 6 states, in reference to examples of reports:
"The report types and bodies themselves are not intended to be representative of any actual feature, as those are outside of the scope of this specification".
Thus it appears that defining report types is outside the scope of the specification under APA review in any case. Hence, the possibility we are interested in exploring is that of creating one or more new report types, to be specified elsewhere.

I support the CfC if the proposed response is revised to take into account the comments above.

-----Original Message-----
From: Janina Sajka ( <>
Sent: Tuesday, 24 May 2022 15:28
To: Accessible Platform Architectures Administration <>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Call for Consensus (CfC): Request re Reporting Spec

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


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***


The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group has again reviewed your specification:;;sdata=jVJwatOnjFFgKszjEXp1JOi9c6Qf%2BD7ca5EGrq%2Brdps%3D&amp;reserved=0

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:;;sdata=SvGX7B3pd8opy2rkMnLitvgh%2B%2FlFOxmypeR4TUO5EQM%3D&amp;reserved=0



Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:;;sdata=u2LEQ%2Bms1Q8eSkkUe2UXhag0TyhSSQOV6U6ibjC9Has%3D&amp;reserved=0

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures;;sdata=K%2FI1a5P7ooJM6zbYy9NCstSa8fomrblwB%2F%2FHhzwuzo0%3D&amp;reserved=0


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Thursday, 26 May 2022 17:56:33 UTC