W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Updated draft charter for SVG work

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:07:58 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJdbnODyijanjgwrWcrbUdgLdF1ctOEGu6M_Xg2PvkPPppBvdg@mail.gmail.com>
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>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:26 UTC