Re: Review draft of Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines checklist

For now, this is a reasonably early review draft and I'm just looking 
for comments on list, or in the teleconference agendum. Later on it may 
need discussion or ratification via survey, tracking of issues, etc., 
but it needs to mature a bit more for that. Michael


On 06/01/2017 5:52 PM, Mary Jo Mueller wrote:
>
> Will this be going to a survey, or how do you prefer we provide 
> comments on this checklist?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Mary Jo
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://www.ibm.com/able> 	
> *Mary Jo Mueller*
> Accessibility Standards Program Manager
> IBM Accessibility, IBM Research, Austin, TX
> Phone: 512-286-9698 | Tie-line: 363-9698
> _Search for accessibility answers_ <http://ibm.biz/a11y-search>		
> 	
> 					
>
> 	
> 	
> 		
>
> "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and 
> become more, you are a leader."
> /~John Quincy Adams/
>
> Inactive hide details for Michael Cooper ---01/06/2017 04:36:38 PM---I 
> have a draft of the Web Technology Accessibility GuideliMichael Cooper 
> ---01/06/2017 04:36:38 PM---I have a draft of the Web Technology 
> Accessibility Guidelines checklist that I think is credibly re
>
> From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
> To: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
> Date: 01/06/2017 04:36 PM
> Subject: Review draft of Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines checklist
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I have a draft of the Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines 
> checklist that I think is credibly ready for review:
>
> _http://w3c.github.io/pfwg/wtag/checklist.html_
>
> The structure is a table with several sections for different features 
> technologies might provide. In each of those is a set of checklist 
> items spec developers can check against their own technology. There 
> are also columns for further explanation and references though those 
> are mostly blank at this point.
>
> I think this is starting to look semi complete. Some review questions 
> I would ask are:
>
>       o Are there any missing sections, i.e., types of issues specs
>         might have that impact accessibility?
>       o Within each section, are there any missing checkpoints?
>       o Are there checkpoints that aren't relevant to *specifications*
>         (even if they're relevant to authors, user agents, etc.)?
>       o Do checkpoints belong in other sections?
>       o Is the overall order logical?
>
> I think the wording in this version is more oriented at ourselves, 
> rather than at people who might actually use this checklist. That is, 
> it uses accessibility jargon, and needs significant rephrasing to help 
> non accessibility specialists who would be asked to use this 
> checklist. I think this version is clear enough for our own review 
> however.
>
> For reference, some other checklists that I'm drawing some ideas from, 
> and may converge with more down the road:
>
>       o _https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs_
>       o _http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/_
>       o _https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/_
>
> Michael
>
>