- From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:07:58 -0500
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, LĂ©onie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, w3c-ac-forum <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJdbnODyijanjgwrWcrbUdgLdF1ctOEGu6M_Xg2PvkPPppBvdg@mail.gmail.com>
John, The Platform WG insisted on being the sole owners of the HTML AAM instead of having a joint deliverable. At least, that's what I remember from the rechartering discussion earlier this year. Personally I don't care - as long as the work gets done! I just think we should be consistent. On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:05 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > +1 echoing Shane's concerns. > > I am also curious about the "push back from others" regarding joint > deliverables, as currently other accessibility work within the W3C is being > addressed via joint Task-Forces (https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/ > task-forces/css-a11y/). > > Are we now suggesting that this model is no longer desired? > > I am also cc'ing the APA on this note, as another potential source of > subject matter expertise that could liaise with the SVG WG - APA has long > advocated embedding accessibility SMEs in other WG's to guide and assist. > > However I too believe that the SVG WG should be the "owner" of the SVG AAM. > > JF > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 7:31 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote: > >> Wendy, >> >> With regard to the AAM: >> >> >> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> > >>> > We'd like to see the SVG Accessibility API Mappings (AAM) specification >>> > back in scope. The HTML AAM spec is the sole responsibility of the >>> > WebPlat WG (along >>> > with the HTML spec), and so keeping the SVG and SVG AAM specs within >>> the >>> > same WG would seem to be a logical thing to do. >>> >>> We've heard others pushing back against joint deliverables, and so her >>> suggest that ARIA take full "ownership" of the AAM spec, and that >>> members participating in SVG are "strongly encouraged to also join the >>> ARIA WG" to help the spec's progress there. >>> >>> >> I am concerned about the inconsistency here. There will be future AAMs. >> The content area experts are in the relevant working groups. This could >> not be more true than in the case of SVG. The ARIA working group has great >> people, and they are experts on the platform AT APIs, but it is unlikely >> they will have the depth to handle the SVG nuances. If you don't want >> joint deliverables, and I undertstand why, then I would encourage you to >> leave this in scope for the SVG working group. ARIA can provide a liaison >> if that is what is needed. >> >> -- >> Shane McCarron >> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops >> > > > > -- > John Foliot > Principal Accessibility Strategist > Deque Systems Inc. > john.foliot@deque.com > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 14:09:00 UTC