- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 2017 09:14:42 -0500
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxwY16gj7vbg_shOBZDiG7_9tZ0X=fpBFSanNT9BUdr70w@mail.gmail.com>
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