Re: Web Platform charter under development

After further thought on this I don’t think it is a good idea to only deal with this in the ARIA Working Group. 

My reason is that it is very easy for a platform to push the work of accessibility off to an accessibility group. Then it becomes out of sight and out of mind. I am not saying that this is something you would do Leonie but I think that the hands off approach is not a good one. We can’t also assume that Steve and Jason will commit to doing the great work they are doing forever. Others in the group will need to step up. 

There is also a precedence problem. We just managed to get the CSS working group to work with us on interoperability based on the latest Task Force work statement. I don’t want to set things back by having another working group set a conflicting path by delegate ownership completely to an accessibility working group. 

It is very important that every platform think about accessibility every time the do their work. It does not mean they should not reach out for assistance, collaboration, and/or co-ownership, but it needs to not be an after thought.  

Rich



Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Aug 11, 2016, at 3:56 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> It might make sense for the HTML AAM work to be done alongside the other AAM work within the ARIA WG. Of the three current editors only one (Steve) is a member of WP, whereas they are all members of the ARIA WG I believe.
> 
> Léonie.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
> 
> On 10/08/2016 21:20, Rich Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> This is asking whether the entire HTML AAM effort should go to the ARIA
>> WG. I doubt we have resources to do that unless the same people continue
>> to work on it.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 3:12 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org
>>> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> The Web Platform group is working on a new charter:
>>> 
>>> http://w3c.github.io/charter-html/group-charter.html
>>> 
>>> I asked if was ok for APA and ARIA to review and Philippe said yes.
>>> 
>>> I think APA should review from a view of deliverables and whether we
>>> need to / are able to work on accessibility review of them. But note
>>> that at a charter level there might not be anything specific to say
>>> unless there's a major flag. The important thing is that we can review
>>> the stuff in the ordinary course of business, which the charter
>>> already sets up provisions for.
>>> 
>>> I think ARIA should look at the HTML Accessibility API Mappings, and
>>> in particular take a position on whether that should continue to be a
>>> joint deliverable between Web Platform and ARIA, or just become a sole
>>> deliverable of ARIA. It should also look at whether the necessary
>>> deliverables and coordinations are expressed to ensure ARIA works in
>>> HTML. There may be other deliverables that relate to ARIA work as well.
>>> 
>>> Philippe asks that comments be filed via GitHub:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/w3c/charter-html/issues/
>>> 
>>> But it might be best if I aggregate any WG feedback rather than get a
>>> bunch of people filing issues. I'm not sure there will be feedback,
>>> but thought it was important that these groups have the opportunity to
>>> review.
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>