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

Re: AOM with APA at TPAC?

From: Joshue O Connor <joconnor@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:40:13 +0100
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Cc: Alice Boxhall <aboxhall@google.com>, Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com>, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>, RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>, public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <84dfbc3d-750b-06d4-0a49-78d86be6c255@w3.org>
On 09/09/2019 15:44, John Foliot wrote:

> 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?)

Thats useful to know John, thanks for passing that on. My initial 
reaction is that kind of thing should be supportable by relevant APIs, 
and I dare say, would be relatively easier, as it seems related to 
current 'knowns'.

> 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
> )

Again, useful to know - and this kind of thing could be useful in terms 
of the kind of 'modality muting' - where unnecessary renderings of an 
environment (such as the visual drawing), can be cut out of the data stream.

Thanks

Josh


>
> 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)
>>
>>
>>
-- 
Emerging Web Technology Specialist/Accessibility (WAI/W3C)
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2019 08:40:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:35 UTC