RE: Review draft of Web Technology Accessibility Guidelines checklist

Michael,

 

Nice draft.

 

I think you are correct that we have to change the lingo/jargon and the look of the document – it seems to me that the i18n, Privacy and Security checklist *should* end up looking similar in branding an style….

 

​​​​​* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems.

 

From: Michael Cooper [mailto:cooper@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017 5:36 PM
To: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group <public-apa@w3.org>
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:

* Are there any missing sections, i.e., types of issues specs might have that impact accessibility?
* Within each section, are there any missing checkpoints?
* Are there checkpoints that aren't relevant to *specifications* (even if they're relevant to authors, user agents, etc.)?
* Do checkpoints belong in other sections?
* 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:

* https://www.w3.org/International/techniques/developing-specs
* http://gregnorc.github.io/ping-privacy-questions/
* https://www.w3.org/TR/security-privacy-questionnaire/

Michael