- From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 22:48:48 -0500
- To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJdbnOBin_6+QmfXF0yYuN6ZUU7H=1iQbBDGH8YxxGYP20iKfg@mail.gmail.com>
Of course. I think the general sentiment was that when a spec specifically does not define a UI but clearly requires one, then it is fine to remind implementors that they must keep those who are differently-abled in mind. WCAG addresses many scenarios. On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2016 03:49:43 UTC