Re: Verifiable Credentials: Top A11y Use Cases

Thank you for this fantastic work Janina. Would you, or one of your
delegates, be interested to present these on a future CCG call? That might
be a good way for us to discuss and learn how to support these use cases
going forward.

The "privacy-preserving identification of users" one reminded me of
something I stumbled across just yesterday. I didn't dig in, but the claim
is that facebook avatars don't work for Blind Voiceover users...
https://twitter.com/NickColley/status/1262743711143784455?s=20

Thanks,
Kim


On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:33 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On 5/19/20 10:15 AM, John, Anil wrote:
> > I've made an explicit note to myself to explore how the use cases
> > that are focused on accessibility and disability status, instead of
> > being treated as standalone, could be incorporated into our existing
> > VC/DID issuance and verification flows for the credentials we are
> > authoritative for.
>
> One thing to note, that some on here might not be aware of, is that the
> W3C Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group is heavily
> involved in creating the standards that US Govt. eventually ends up
> subsuming into law.
>
> One example is Section 508 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG):
>
> https://www.boia.org/blog/is-there-a-legal-requirement-to-implement-wcag
>
> My expectation is that W3C APA may have some things to say about
> Verifiable Credentials, and how they're handled, that end up being
> subsumed into law as well.
>
> For example, I'm not convinced that the Credential Handler API (CHAPI)
> used in the browser is ADA compliant yet... it might be, but it hasn't
> been tested AFAIK.
>
> >> Cross-Border Transfer of Service Dogs and Comfort Animals
> > Hmm... I will need to talk to some folks who sit on the other side of
> > the table (i.e. those who need to validate/verify status) to
> > understand their pain points on this as well. On a separate note,
> > would this actually end up being a case where the Subject and the
> > Holder are NOT the same?
>
> Yes, it might be that the Credential Subject would be the service animal
> and the Holder would be the individual with accessibility needs. It
> might also be the case where the Credential Subject is the person and
> there is a relationship between them and a description of the service
> animal (like an identifier for the animal).
>
> The data might be modeled in either way, depending on how Self-Sovereign
> you want the animal to be. :P (I'm only half joking). There is not much
> different between this use case and one involving a dependent or child.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
>
>