W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > August 2016

Re: ACTION-2053: Draft-y language for Accessibility Considerations sections

From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 23:28:04 +0100
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d0ad0302-dfd8-97b1-a2b9-f727fc90988e@tink.uk>
We should keep in mind that the interface that uses these APIs may not 
be well covered by WCAG (at least at present). Definitely a good idea to 
point people to WCAG, but I'd hesitate to say that accessibility 
requirements are defined by them.

Léonie.

-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

On 10/08/2016 23:23, Shane McCarron wrote:
> The APA working group has requested that I add something in there about
> how may requirements on user interface experiences are defined via
> WCAG.  I will incorporate some language about that tomorrow.
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk
> <mailto:tink@tink.uk>> wrote:
>
>     LGTM.
>
>
>     --
>     @LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk> Carpe diem
>
>     On 10/08/2016 17:41, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>         So, to be clear, the final version of the proposed wording is:
>
>             This specification has no defined user interface. Consequently,
>             there are no specific accessibility requirements on
>         implementations.
>             However, to the extent that an implementation provides user
>             interactions to support this specification, the
>         implementation must
>             ensure that the interface is exposed to the platform
>         accessibility
>             API. Moreover, implementors should take into consideration
>         the needs
>             of their users with varying abilities when designing
>         solutions that
>             implement this specification. For example, the use of biometric
>             authentication techniques should be varied enough to allow for
>             people with widely differing physical abilities.
>
>
>
>         On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk
>         <mailto:tink@tink.uk>
>         <mailto:tink@tink.uk <mailto:tink@tink.uk>>> wrote:
>
>             On 09/08/2016 14:12, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>                 Nice!  Friendly amendment?  I think that "widely
>         differing physical
>                 abilities" is more poetic than "widely different physical
>                 abilities".
>                 What do you think?
>
>             +1
>
>
>             Léonie.
>
>
>             --
>             @LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk> <http://tink.uk>
>         Carpe diem
>
>
>
>
>         --
>         Shane McCarron
>         Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
>
>
>
>
> --
> Shane McCarron
> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 22:28:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:23:01 UTC