Re: List of relevant technologies (Was: Re: Bring the group back to life - Call for consensus by 24 July 2020)

Hi Francois, Simon, all,

I think the steps you propose, Francois, sound great. It seems that, regarding activity 1 (tracking gaps) it would be a good idea to record where we have filed bug/feature requests and what the outcome was. It sounds like some of your requests, Simon, may result in issues/changes filed on various projects, and it would be good for us to be able to keep track of those. Therefore, the "list" as I termed it sounds more like a table, with each row recording:

* the technology;
* the request we have (perhaps if this gets long, like including code samples, we could put that on a separate page);
* links to any issues filed;
* current status;
* last updated date.

This is the sort of approach we use for tracking things in the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) group; do you think it would be helpful to do something similar here?

Task 1 seems like something I might even be able to help with, so I'd be happy to have a go at some of it (should we divide up the list, or just see how I get on with it?)

Task 2 sounds very interesting, though I think needs an expert such as Francois (though happy to help/review).

Agreed that task 3 is more apt for later.

If this sounds good, we need to decide:

* Where to track our tasks - I'm thinking either Noël's forum, if the posts can be edited, or perhaps a GitHub repo for this group;
* Where to record the outcome - we have the wiki already, but we could use that or a GitHub repo, or the forum. I think one of the first two sound best, but we do need to pick something that works for _this_ group of people, and I certainly don't have the experience to know that, yet :-).

Please let me know if you think there's anything I can do.

best regards,

Matthew Tylee Atkinson
Senior Accessibility Engineer
The Paciello Group

A Vispero Company

This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify us immediately.
Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

On 31/07/2020, 11:07, "Francois Daoust" <> wrote:

    Hi Matthew,

    See comments inline on the list of relevant technologies

    ------ Original message ------
    From: "Matthew Atkinson" <>
    Date: 30/07/2020 23:07:11

    >Hi all,
    >Thanks Francois for making the accessibility-related charter update; it looks great to me. I have now been officially accepted into the group from a W3C perspective, so I can act as a liaison with the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) group if needed.
    >It was good to hear about your backgrounds, Noël, Tom and Vincent, and from Francois with the latest update on progress since the workshop. Here's a bit more about me: I am an accessibility consultant with The Paciello Group (primarily helping clients make their web and mobile apps accessible). Before that, I was a researcher in academia and worked on digital accessibility projects [1]. I have worked on some game accessibility projects in the ancient past [2] and have recently found a bit of time to start playing games again [3]. Whilst I don't have a games industry background, I would be happy to help in any way I can :-).
    >In order to keep the momentum going, I have two questions...
    >1. Is there anything small we could work on right away? I know that discoverability is a major concern, and am catching up with the schema proposal Noël made [4]. Is there anything else that we could get started on? One thing I was wondering: do we have a recorded list of all of the things that other W3C groups (and external organisations) are working on that are relevant to this group? Here are a couple that spring to mind from work going on in APA:
    >    * XR Accessibility User Requirements: - just published and a really clear and helpful overview.
    >    * Framework for Accessible Specification of Technologies (FAST):
    >    There is a page on this group's wiki about features we are tracking [5] but it was last edited in 2012; would it be helpful to go through that list and update it (or put the list somewhere else)?
    I don't have particular inputs on topics that should get prioritized. 
    That's what I hope the CG can help figure out.

    A few comments regarding the list of technologies that are relevant to 
    games, I would see 3 different things that the CG could be doing:

    1. Collecting and documenting specific hurdles and gaps, e.g. the Web 
    Audio API limitations that Simon mentions in another email in this 
    thread. This could be done through the Wiki or as Markdown in a GitHub 
    repo. I would keep it as simple as possible to avoid having to spend too 
    much time addressing editorial issues. This would allow to identify 
    needs on technologies of interest, and run discussions with the groups 
    responsible for them.

    2. Preparing a roadmap of technologies that are relevant for games. I 
    had prepared such a roadmap before the workshop [7]. That document needs 
    to be updated. For instance, it does not mention the XR Accessibility 
    User Requirements document you mention. My experience with these types 
    of documents is that it is best (although possibly counterintuitive) 
    *not to* tell a story, but rather to keep the structure minimal and 
    mention technologies separately. This makes the result slightly less 
    pleasant to read, but makes maintenance far easier, and the main 
    difficulty with these documents is to keep them up-to-date! If that 
    seems useful - and provided I get some help! -, I'm happy to refresh and 
    maintain the Games on the Web roadmap within the CG. I'm also happy to 
    hand over editorship to someone else if there is interest :)

    3. Preparing a vision document. As opposed to the roadmap, here the goal 
    is to tell a story. I would be more cautious about investing time on 
    that in the CG. These documents tend to require a lot of time and tend 
    to become obsolete fast as they are difficult to maintain. However, they 
    can also be very useful to converge on a common perspective.

    In other words, I would do 1 and 2, and would leave 3 on the side for 

    In any case, the Wiki pages need to be refreshed, indeed!

    >2. Francois mentioned the forum Noël set up [6] - is that the place where we should be having all discussions (i.e. not this list)? If so I'll move my question above to that forum.

    I expect some back and forth between the forum and the list while the 
    group gets up to speed, but that is indeed the idea.


Received on Saturday, 1 August 2020 15:07:17 UTC