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

RE: Web Platform charter under development

From: Matt King <a11ythinker@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 19:39:52 -0700
To: "'Rich Schwerdtfeger'" <richschwer@gmail.com>, <tink@tink.uk>
Cc: "'Mike Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group'" <public-apa@w3.org>, "'ARIA'" <public-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1f8201d1f442$cea0ab30$6be20190$@gmail.com>
+1 to this.

 

From: Rich Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 12:11 PM
To: tink@tink.uk
Cc: Mike Cooper <cooper@w3.org>; Accessible Platform Architectures Working
Group <public-apa@w3.org>; ARIA <public-aria@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Web Platform charter under development

 

After further thought on this I don’t think it is a good idea to only deal
with this in the ARIA Working Group. 

 

My reason is that it is very easy for a platform to push the work of
accessibility off to an accessibility group. Then it becomes out of sight
and out of mind. I am not saying that this is something you would do Leonie
but I think that the hands off approach is not a good one. We can’t also
assume that Steve and Jason will commit to doing the great work they are
doing forever. Others in the group will need to step up. 

 

There is also a precedence problem. We just managed to get the CSS working
group to work with us on interoperability based on the latest Task Force
work statement. I don’t want to set things back by having another working
group set a conflicting path by delegate ownership completely to an
accessibility working group. 

 

It is very important that every platform think about accessibility every
time the do their work. It does not mean they should not reach out for
assistance, collaboration, and/or co-ownership, but it needs to not be an
after thought.  

 

Rich

 

 

 

Rich Schwerdtfeger

 

 

 

On Aug 11, 2016, at 3:56 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk
<mailto:tink@tink.uk> > wrote:

 

It might make sense for the HTML AAM work to be done alongside the other AAM
work within the ARIA WG. Of the three current editors only one (Steve) is a
member of WP, whereas they are all members of the ARIA WG I believe.

Léonie.



-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk>  Carpe diem

On 10/08/2016 21:20, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:



This is asking whether the entire HTML AAM effort should go to the ARIA
WG. I doubt we have resources to do that unless the same people continue
to work on it.

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger







On Aug 10, 2016, at 3:12 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org
<mailto:cooper@w3.org> 
<mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:

The Web Platform group is working on a new charter:

http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html

I asked if was ok for APA and ARIA to review and Philippe said yes.

I think APA should review from a view of deliverables and whether we
need to / are able to work on accessibility review of them. But note
that at a charter level there might not be anything specific to say
unless there's a major flag. The important thing is that we can review
the stuff in the ordinary course of business, which the charter
already sets up provisions for.

I think ARIA should look at the HTML Accessibility API Mappings, and
in particular take a position on whether that should continue to be a
joint deliverable between Web Platform and ARIA, or just become a sole
deliverable of ARIA. It should also look at whether the necessary
deliverables and coordinations are expressed to ensure ARIA works in
HTML. There may be other deliverables that relate to ARIA work as well.

Philippe asks that comments be filed via GitHub:

https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/

But it might be best if I aggregate any WG feedback rather than get a
bunch of people filing issues. I'm not sure there will be feedback,
but thought it was important that these groups have the opportunity to
review.

Michael



 

 

 
Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 02:40:26 UTC

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