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

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

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 22:48:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnOBin_6+QmfXF0yYuN6ZUU7H=1iQbBDGH8YxxGYP20iKfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:22 UTC