Re: Draft checklist for accessibility of technology, comment by 17 March

Some initial quick comments:

1. Add a note in the W3C Editor's Draft itself on how to submit comments, 
e.g send email to , public-apa@w3.org, 

2. Define all acronyms, such as "AAPI", which I assume means 
"Accessibility API, Application Programming interface".  Why are there 
A-APIs and not just API's?

3. Add the end users responsibility for settings and configurations to the 
list, such as "...describes how technologies, content authoring, user 
agents and end user settings work together ...".

4. Add example of each checkpoint, such as from HTML 5.1, CSS or some web 
technology to which the checkpoint is referring. 

5. Love the acronym of the doc - FAST.

6. Change "Authors can ..." to "Technology specification provides for ..." 
in the Document semantics section.

7. Merge sections on Visual Media with Audio.

8. Add "Alternative user input modalities" to User Input section, such as 
Sign Language video input as an alternative to text keyboard, or gesture 
alternative to mouse clicks, etc.

__________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
+1 512-791-4517 mobile
pjenkins@us.ibm.com
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility
ibm.com/able
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility
twitter.com/IBMAccess
ageandability.com




From:   Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
To:     w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, chairs@w3.org, spec-prod@w3.org, 
public-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org, public-svg-wg@w3.org, 
public-webauthn@w3.org, www-international@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, 
public-digipub-ig@w3.org, public-payments-wg@w3.org, 
public-secondscreen@w3.org, w3t@w3.org, public-wot-wg@w3.org
Date:   02/20/2017 03:55 PM
Subject:        Draft checklist for accessibility of technology, comment 
by 17 March



The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group is developing a 
checklist to guide specification developers in the features needed to 
ensure their technology enables accessibility to people with disabilities. 
This is to address not only content markup languages that describe primary 
content, but also styling languages that impact presentation, APIs that 
enable manipulation and data interchange, and protocols that tie it all 
together. Like similar checklists addressing Internationalization, 
Privacy, and Security, this would enable self-review as a first stage in 
the "horizontal review" process of ensuring W3C specifications have broad 
applicability. Using it should reduce effort in providing basic 
accessibility coverage, and it will aid early identification of more 
complex issues that may need direct exploration with the APA WG.

The draft checklist is available at:

http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html

This draft is not yet complete, in particular expanded details about each 
checklist item are yet to be added, but it shows how APA approaches its 
horizontal review responsibility. We request review from a variety of 
stakeholders, including accessibility groups who identify user needs and 
specification developers who might use this checklist.

The following questions may help guide your review:

* Is it understandable how these checkpoints apply to technologies?
* Is this format useful in considering accessibility needs during 
technology development?
* Would this guidance help inform your interaction with the APA WG on 
horizontal review?
* Are the checkpoints relevant to *specifications*?
* Are there any missing types of issues specs might have that impact 
accessibility?
* Within each section, are there any missing checkpoints?
* Is the overall order logical?

We appreciate review of this first version by 17 March 2017, so the APA WG 
can incorporate feedback in time for an updated draft in April. Comments 
can be sent:

* by email to public-apa@w3.org,
* as an issue at https://github.com/w3c/pfwg/issues,
* or as pull requests against the master branch at 
https://github.com/w3c/pfwg/blob/master/wtag/checklist.html

Janina Sajka, APA WG Chair
Michael Cooper, APA WG W3C Staff Contact