Re: 48-Hour Call for Consensus (CfC): New APA Charter

Hello, John:

I will endeavor to keep this email succinct. I'm hoping we can find the
resolution that could get Deque from a -1 to a +1 on the APA Charter.

For the record I want to acknowledge you did try phoning me earlier in
the week. And, while I'm aware you're currently engaged with Access U,
if there's any opportunity for a conversation before close of business
Friday, I will be available to you.


I have just a few comments below in response to your comments here, but
also from your post at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2018May/0017.html


John Foliot writes:
> - 1.
> 
> Deque supports the ongoing work of the APA WG, as well as moving the
> Personalization Task Force from the ARIA WG to the APA WG. Our concern is
> with the Rec Track Modules defined in the Charter deliverables.
> 
Thank you for the overall support for APA.

> We have serious reservations regarding the emergent approach of an
> attribute-based taxonomy solution, which, despite assurances to the
> contrary, is what is being proposed and illustrated in the current 3 draft
> modules. This remains fundamentally the same approach that has been
> proposed since at least TPAC Sapporo (2015), where a number of
> accessibility people pushed back hard on the "ARIA all the things" approach
> then. Moving the same basic idea to first coga-* attributes, and then aui-*
> attributes is simply a reformulation of the original problem using any of
> these different attribute prefixes: author lift.
> 

You're indeed correct that this approach goes back at least to PF discussion in October 2015 during TPAC in Sapporo.

And, I do find you on record expressing concern about the proliferation
of ARIA attributes during those discussions:
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-aria-minutes.html#item07

However, you also appear to have supported an ARIA prefix approach to
supporting the personalization requirements raised by COGA:
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-aria-minutes.html#item04

In fact the reason that Personalization became an ARIA, rather than an APA Task Force during our last round of rechartering--as PF was split into two WGs--is precisely the understanding that the likely solution would be based on ARIA. However, the current ARIA Charter, still the operative charter for the Personalization TF, doesn't define this approach. Rather, it's stated in the Personalization TF Work Statement:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/task-forces/personalization/work-statement

Should the W3C approve moving Personalization from ARIA to APA, we
would,
of course, be updating this Work Statement.

The relevant language that IS in the current APA Charter draft
covering normative Personalization specification work is in the "Scope" section and reads:

 "Leverage existing W3C markup technologies to produce new
 specifications which support content personalization for various
 identified accessibility requirements;"

I do not believe it would be appropriate for a Working Group charter to
be more specific. Certainly the Charter should not predetermine some
particular outcome. I believe the above language requires the TF to look
at all available markup from W3C in devising its normative
specifications. That would, of course, include ARIA, but would not be
restricted just to ARIA as is currently the case.

I hope this helps on this point.

> "Leaving them in" the Editors Draft (so that we remember what we're talking
> about) is not the right answer, because it continues to leave the
> un-informed observer with the over-arching idea that we're working on new
> attributes. Nothing in the Charter or emergent modules suggests otherwise.
> 

As you acknowledged on your other email thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa/2018May/0017.html


We have added disclaimers to the Personalization TF publications in the
hope of clarifying precisely this point. We have also made it easy to
access these disclaimers, e.g.

https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#examples-disclaimer

Do these disclaimers help?

> Finally, as others have noted, where is the compare and contrast of
> approaches we should have before we continue to pursue a specific strategy?
> One of the advantages of moving this Task Force away from the ARIA WG was
> to free the TF to explore options beyond an attribute-based solution.
> 


Of course, we need to do that work. However, please recognize the
Personalization TF is still under the ARIA Charter. Furthermore, while
our expectation of doing this work goes back at least to TPAC in Sapporo
as noted above, the Personalization TF was actually constituted far more
recently. It's Work Statement dates its work to 14 July 2017--less than
a year ago.


It is very much a work in progress and likely to remain so for some
time. We do hope you and Deque can help make its outcomes useful to an
ever widening circle of both developers and end users.

Let me know if I can help further on the APA Charter.

Janina

> JF
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 15, 2018, 5:05 PM Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> > +1
> >
> > Janina Sajka writes:
> > > Colleagues:
> > >
> > > This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> > > Architectures (APA) Working Group on a new Charter for our WG. As you
> > > know, our current Charter will expire at the end of July, and the first
> > > step in the renewal process is for us to agree on the Charter proposal
> > > we would offer to W3C.
> > >
> > > Having discussed a new Charter over the past several months, our
> > > proposed new Charter draft can be found here:
> > >
> > > https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter.html
> > >
> > > It is hereby proposed to forward this draft Charter as our proposal of
> > > work for the coming 3-year Charter period.
> > >
> > >
> > > *       ACTION TO TAKE
> > >
> > > This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> > > support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
> > > messages of support are certainly welcome.
> > >
> > > If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
> > > proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
> > > than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Tuesday 15 May.
> > >
> > > Janina
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Janina Sajka
> > >
> > > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:     http://a11y.org
> > >
> > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures      http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> > >
> >
> > >    Here is my proposed feedback to the Timed Text Working Group:
> > >
> > >
> > >    <draft-feedback>
> > >
> > >
> > >     1. While we appreciate that [1]TTML Profiles for Internet Media
> > >        Subtitles and Captions 1.1 is depending on [2]Timed Text Markup
> > >        Language 2 (TTML2), it should still include an introduction that
> > >        guides the reader to a better understanding of its content.  Such
> > >        an introduction could respond to the following questions:
> > >
> > >     a. Why are profiles needed for text-only and image-only
> > >        captions/subtitles?
> > >     b. What are typical use cases for a image-only captions/subtitles?
> > >     c. What is the purpose of a presentation processor, and a
> > >        transformation processor?
> > >
> > >
> > >     2. There is a general issue with the way that an author specifies
> > >        layout characteristics of captions and subtitles, such as font
> > >        size, font family, line height, background and positioning.  The
> > >        spec describes the approach of the author specifying a “fixed
> > >        layout” for captions and subtitles that the user cannot change.
> > >        However, it must be possible for the user to overwrite the
> > author’s
> > >        choice of font size, or background color, for example. This is
> > >        necessary for accessibility reasons, in the same way that browsers
> > >        allow the user to change font size and background color.  How can
> > >        we find a good solution for these conflicting interests between
> > >        author and user?  We would like to get into a discussion with you
> > >        on this issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >     3. Section 2 Documentation Conventions (applies also to [3]Timed Text
> > >        Markup Language 2 (TTML2) section 2.3). For accessibility of the
> > >        spec, information such as whether an element is deprecated or
> > >        obsoleted should not be indicated by color (or background color)
> > >        alone (cf. [4]WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.1).
> > >
> > >
> > >     4. Section 5.1 General. The method of associating a text profile
> > >        document instance with an image profile document instance should
> > be
> > >        specified for interoperability reasons, and not be left open to
> > the
> > >        specific implementation.  Also, the association should be in both
> > >        ways, i.e. also from the image profile document instance to the
> > >        text profile document instance.
> > >
> > >
> > >     5. Section 6 Supported Features and Extensions. All font-related
> > >        features are prohibited for the image profile. This seems to be an
> > >        unnecessary restriction if the image profile contains images in
> > SVG
> > >        format which could be rendered differently based on the author’s
> > >        choice of font characteristics.
> > >
> > >
> > >     6. Section 7.7.3 itts:forcedDisplay. This seems like a temporary
> > >        solution. Wouldn’t it be better to define semantic layers of
> > >        information that each could be made visible and invisible at
> > >        runtime as appropriate for the user?  For example, the user may
> > >        want to see either speech-only (subtitles), narration speech only
> > >        (parts of subtitles), foreign-language speech-only (parts of
> > >        subtitles) or any combination of them.
> > >
> > >
> > >     7. Section 7.7.4 itts:altText.  While we see this feature as useful
> > >        for accessibility purposes, it should be mandatory for images
> > >        rather than recommended only. As mentioned in the spec, one could
> > >        take the pertaining text passage from the text profile document
> > >        instance – but (1) an accompanying text profile is not required,
> > >        and (2) the alternative text for the image could be different from
> > >        the textual caption. Therefore, the itts:altText element should
> > >        always be specified, but it should be empty for decorative images
> > >        (not clear if a “decorative image” used as a caption makes sense
> > >        anyway). By requiring an itts:altText for every image, but
> > allowing
> > >        for an empty element in case of a decorative image, we would align
> > >        it with the alt attribute in HTML5 for images.
> > >
> > >
> > >    </draft-feedback>
> > >
> > >
> > >    Best regards,
> > >
> > >    Gottfried
> > >
> > >
> > >    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > >    Von: Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group Issue Tracker
> > >    [mailto:sysbot+tracker@w3.org]
> > >    Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. Oktober 2017 09:29
> > >    An: public-apa@w3.org
> > >    Betreff: apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media
> > >    subtitles and captions 1.1 https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
> > >
> > >
> > >    apa-ACTION-2152: Review ttml profiles for internet media subtitles and
> > >    captions 1.1 [5]https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
> > >
> > >
> > >    [6]http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152
> > >
> > >
> > >    Assigned to: Gottfried Zimmermann
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > >    1. https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml-imsc1.1/
> > >    2. https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/
> > >    3. https://www.w3.org/TR/ttml2/
> > >    4.
> > https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#visual-audio-contrast-without-color
> > >    5. https://www.w3.org/tr/ttml-imsc1.1/
> > >    6. http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/track/actions/2152
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Janina Sajka
> >
> > Linux Foundation Fellow
> > Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
> >
> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> > Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures        http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> >
> >
> >

-- 

Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2018 20:14:04 UTC