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

Re: Updated draft charter for SVG work

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:14:42 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxwY16gj7vbg_shOBZDiG7_9tZ0X=fpBFSanNT9BUdr70w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
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>
Hi Shane,

Fair enough, and I concur with your desired outcome: under, over,
through... let's just get it done. ;-)

JF

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io> wrote:

> 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/ta
>> sk-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
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2017 14:15:17 UTC

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