RE: Password role proposal: Freedom Scientific response



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Janina Sajka [mailto:janina@rednote.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:16 AM

>But, that's a very different than W3C has previously required of ARIA.
>We've never tested, in my recollection, for anything other than two
>independent implementations via AAPIs. The principle is demonstrating
>implementability, not full adoption afaik.

I agree. However, it seems to me that, considering the other end of the spectrum, having only implementations at the API level, without any AT at all that consumes the information, stands as a very weak form of support for a feature, especially if the specification provides guidance as to how an AT should handle it.

I'm not proposing a change to the exit criteria, but I am expressing concern about the idea that a feature could be considered to have interoperable implementations where there are no demonstrable consumers on the AT side. In practice, I doubt that this will be a problem in ARIA 1.1, as there are several screen reader development organizations represented in the group (Apple, Google, Igalia, Microsoft, Nv Access, and possibly others that I've missed - apologies if so).


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 15:54:16 UTC