Re: AOM with APA at TPAC?

Josh writes:

>  the annotations a la ARIA or something new - that does provide the
vocabulary for the areas we have identified like Navigation, Object and
Interaction semantics.

I'll only add that there may also be an additional need/wrinkle there Josh,
and that's in the Personalization vein, where the Personalization TF is
attempting to crack a tack-on issue of making user-interfaces more
customizable.

So, for example, in XR environments, will the current taxonomy terms found
for data-action suffice? (
https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#action-explanation)
Will they even be applicable? (If no, are there any suggestions on tackling
the user-need there?)

Will the architecture support something like data-distraction, where the
goal would be to remove aspects of the content that are non-essential and
may have a negative impact on some users? (
https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#distraction-explanation
)

At any rate, more questions without concrete answers.

I hope you all have a great TPAC, and I am sorry to be missing it this year.

JF

On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 7:37 AM Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org> wrote:

> Hello Alice and all,
>
> On 09/09/2019 00:50, Alice Boxhall wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Everything Léonie said!
> Great, thanks for the feedback both. It's very useful.
> >
> > My main concern would be that the existing ARIA vocabulary/existing AT
> > interaction patterns would be too limiting for UX designed for an
> immersive
> > environment (orthogonal to the AOM API design), which Janina touches on
> > below.
> Right, and mine - so it would be great if we could get to an
> understanding of what a baseline semantic architecture for XR would look
> like, and then we can work out what are the annotations a la ARIA or
> something new - that does provide the vocabulary for the areas we have
> identified like Navigation, Object and Interaction semantics.
> >
> >> 2.) Do we need bi-directionality for good XR support? Semantics can be
> >>> consumed by user agents but may be modified in an imersive environment
> >>> and change as interactions are happening. Like React is data driven, XR
> >>> semantics may be interaction or results driven.
> >>>
> >>> 3.) What would be the ideal architecture to support XR accessibility?
> We
> >>> seem to be currently aiming at patching XR with current and even legacy
> >>> AT, so that architecture may be temporary, or move away from browser
> and
> >>> API interactions towards AT being embedded in an immersive environment.
> >>> What does "good" look like in this situation?
> > These are really interesting and important questions - I don't know
> enough
> > about XR to start answering them.
>
>
> This is really why meeting and discussing is going to be (a lot of fun)
> and very helpful.
>
> >
> >> 4) Are Object Oriented approaches to accessible XR preferable to
> >>> declarative or author applied semantics?
> >>> Please confirm whether 11:00 Thursday works.
> > It's open for me, although if the topic is primarily going to be XR I'm
> > unclear why this would be a separate session from the proposed plenary
> > session <https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#XR_Accessibility
> >
> > on Wednesday.
>
>
> Well that is a rather general session/conversation around how to provide
> better engagement on XR with the current a11y community, as well as let
> people know of the work we are all doing in this space. For example
> Léonie and Doms upcoming workshop, and our current XAUR drafts as well
> as how people can engage with this work who may not be monitoring it so
> closely. So I think this will be more general whereas the AOM topic is
> quite specific and your expertise is needed.
>
> Thanks, and I look forward to working with you.
>
> Josh
>
> --
> Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)
>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com