W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > May 2019

Re: First review of APA WebRTC use cases and organisational topics needing discussion

From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 10:51:19 +0100
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: "w3t-archive@w3.org" <w3t-archive@w3.org>, "public-apa@w3.org" <public-apa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1f7e6545-49da-0938-2713-2f72be766ee5@w3.org>
Hi Dom,

Some comments inline (I'm also cc'ingĀ  your excellent feedback to the 
APA list as it is very useful and we can discuss on an upcoming call). 
Note, to avoid very long threads, I've separated your feedback on 
individual use cases from the structural or organisational topics below. 
I think each of the points below need further discussion in APA, and I 
will suggest these are added as agenda topics for next week. I will 
forward your use case specific comments to the group in a separate mail.

On 16/05/2019 14:50, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi Josh,
>
> As promised, here is some first feedback on the use cases for WebRTC the
> APA WG is developing [1].
>
> An overall improvement to the use cases would be the better delineate
> which requirements apply:
> * to the application using WebRTC technologies
> * to the WebRTC technologies
> * or to the UI of the browser implementing WebRTC
+1. One of my challenges has been identifying where the draft use case 
sit in the stack, and how they relate to either the plumbing of WebRTC 
or the UIs built with WebRTC. We will likely need to discuss this 
further but I can have a go at trying to work this out and arrange the 
use cases accordingly.
>
> One common challenge that emerges from the use cases is that, as WebRTC
> enables any one to build a communication service as a Web app, some of
> the needs for users with disabilities migrate from being at the device
> or protocol level to the individual service-level, which may create new
> issues in terms of interoperability with assistive technologies.
Can you clarify the definition of 'individual service-level?
>
> I don't think we have a good framework to approach that question at the
> moment - it isn't clear that the WebRTC WG is at the right level to
> approach it either. I wonder if there would be value in an
> "accessibility communication services" checklist (presumably derived
> from WCAG) that would highlight these needs more specifically.

This could be where something like Michaels Framework for Accessible 
Specification of Technologies (FAST) could help here. [1]

> It also sounds like there are needs for interfacing with third party
> services (e.g. sign language translation or live captioning) that WebRTC
> make more prominent (but probably aren't specifically tied to WebRTC) -
> this I think needs more research in terms of where and how that
> integration / interoperability would happen.

Sounds good and needs further discussion.

I will add all of these as an agendum in APA.

Excellent, appreciated!

Josh

[1] https://w3c.github.io/apa/fast/

-- 
Emerging Web Technology Specialist/A11y (WAI/W3C)
Received on Friday, 17 May 2019 09:50:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:33 UTC