Re: Accessibility Task Force

A concern for me with this approach is that, if the task force is not a
joint task force, its mandate is different. An accessibility task force
that is only answerable to the HTML WG could come up with approaches for
accessibility in HTML that would not be acceptable to the PFWG - even if
there are several PFWG members who participate as HTML members. Being a
joint task force helps to ensure the requirement that its outputs are
satisfactory to *both* working groups.

Also, the goal of the PFWG in setting up a joint task force was to
create a new formal channel for communication between PFWG and HTML WG.
Communication in the past has been difficult and disorganized at times,
and we are hoping this channel would help to improve that situation,
literally by creating a way to "channel" discussion. By not being a
joint task force, that opportunity would be reduced.

I am not speaking on behalf of the PFWG, as there has not been
opportunity to check with the group. It is possible that the PFWG will
not share these concerns and will approve going ahead as planned. It may
be difficult for us to arrive at a consensus quickly as our
teleconferences are canceled next week due to a conference. I will see
if we can come to consensus by email in time for the next HTML meeting.
I myself will be unable to attend that call due to the same conference
but there may be someone present who can represent PFWG.


Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> So,
> the current TF proposed charter mentions:
> [[
> As part of the above, the task force expects to participate in the
> following deliverables of the sponsoring Working Groups:
>       * Commiting spec edits of HTML (HTML WG deliverable)
>       * Formal spec review of HTML on behalf of PFWG (PFWG deliverable)
> ]]
> It doesn't say anything about WAI ARIA.
> As such, the easiest solution to resolve the Patent Policy question is
> indeed to create the task force within the HTML Working Group and gets
> the WAI PF folks who wants to participate in the TF to join the HTML WG.
> Philippe
> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 14:01 -0400, Janina Sajka wrote:
>> PF discussed the 8 points below during our weekly telecon today, 9
>> September:
>> We are in agreement with the 8 points as given below.
>> Janina
>> Paul Cotton writes:
>>> >From the Sep 3 HTML WG minutes:
>>>> mjs: chairs will be together face-to-face tomorrow, and this can be
>>>>   among what we discuss
>>>>   ... anybody have comments to make about this on the call today?
>>>>   ... not seeing any comments, propose we move to next agenda item
>>> The HTML WG chairs and W3C Team did discuss this topic last Friday and came up with the following outline for a joint Accessibility TF:
>>> Accessibility TF:
>>>  1. Any WG member from either the HTML or PF WGs can join (opt in model)
>>>  2. Separate email list for TF (email address TBD).
>>>  3. Both WGs would be obligated re Patent Policy on any W3C Recommendation track document that is impacted by the TF work.
>>>  4. The Patent Policy obligations would be mentioned in the Status section of said documents.
>>>  5. TF would have a separate meeting slot (day and time TBD).
>>>  6. TF would not make final decisions which would be made by HTML and/or PF WGs
>>>  7. Someone from each WG would be designated to report back to their WG on the work of the TF.
>>>  8. Facilitators of the TF would be selected jointly by PF and HTML WG chairs. 
>>> Discussion on this matter ended with Philippe taking the following Action Item:
>>> ACTION ITEM: Philippe is going to look into some questions we have about how the W3C Patent Policy obligations would apply to a joint TF.
>>> Comments on the above outline are welcome.
>>> /paulc
>>> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
>>> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
>>> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


Michael Cooper
Web Accessibility Specialist
World Wide Web Consortium, Web Accessibility Initiative
E-mail <>
Information Page <>

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 16:53:16 UTC