Re: Updated draft charter for SVG work

We’ve been pushing back on joint deliverables in charters for pragmatic reasons: If no single group owns a spec, it tends to be a secondary priority for both groups.

I don’t have strong feelings on whether the one owner should be a horizontal group such as ARIA or a spec-focused group such as SVG. My general principle is that work should go where the critical mass of expertise and willingness to do work lies.

From: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>
Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:07 AM
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>, "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "liam@w3.org" <liam@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Updated draft charter for SVG work
Resent-From: "w3c-ac-forum@w3.org" <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:09 AM

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion



--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops