- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 11:32:02 -0500
- To: lwatson@paciellogroup.com
- Cc: Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <3D131FCB-C1ED-4037-946F-8C49B84DE2EC@w3.org>
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com> wrote: > > Hello WP IG, Hi Léonie, thank you for the comments. I have some notes inline. > > You kindly asked the TF to look at the proposed WP WG charter, and share > comments. We think the charter represents accessibility in a positive and > practical way, and would just like to suggest a couple of changes. > > In the opening "mission statement" section, the benefits of reducing > fragmentation are listed. It would be good for accessibility to be included > in this list, perhaps by changing this benefit: > > "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for consumers as a > result of increased choice and standardized flows and experiences." > > To something like: > > "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for consumers as a > result of increased choice and standardized flows and accessible > experiences.” Did the accessibility task force discuss how the chartered work of this group would create more accessible experiences? > In section 3.2 (Optional deliverables) a card payments recommendation is > proposed. In the list of things such a recommendation could achieve, it > would be good to mention accessibility. Perhaps by adding the following: > > "Demonstrate how to present a debit-pull digital payment scheme interface > that is accessible and usable by consumers.” One thing to note about this charter is that we say "This group is chartered to standardize programming interfaces; not user interfaces.” So when you say “present an interface that is accessible” do you mean “a user interface” ? I want to be sure that statements in the charter are self-consistent. > The last thing is a minor nit, but in section 4.2 (Other W3C groups), should > it be APA instead of PF? If that group exists when we launch this one, we can make that change. Until then, I think we should stay with our current inclusive verbiage: "Protocols and Formats Working Group (and successor)” Ian -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 16:32:06 UTC