W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-new-work@w3.org > July 2018

[wbs] response to 'Call for Review: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Working Group Charter'

From: David Baron via WBS Mailer <sysbot+wbs@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 19:24:06 +0000
To: public-new-work@w3.org
Message-Id: <wbs-78e081c50bd06f765bfef6fc1a41ab11@w3.org>
The following answers have been successfully submitted to 'Call for Review:
Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Working Group  Charter'
(Advisory Committee) for Mozilla Foundation by David Baron.


The reviewer's organization suggests changes to this Charter, and only
supports the proposal if the changes are adopted [Formal Objection].

Additional comments about the proposal:
   
We support the work in this charter.


However, we object to one piece of the charter, which is in this part:

  For every platform with mappings in an Accessibility API Mapping
  specification, at least one implementation of 75% of the mappings
  being tested on that platform will demonstrate implementability on
  that platform. Multiple implementations of each platform are not
  required because some platforms have only one implementation. For
  features that are not platform-specific, passing test results in at
  least two different implementations will be documented to demonstrate
  implementability.

This is a substantial weakening of the W3C's usual rules for
demonstrating interoperability.  We do not believe it should be
acceptable to advance a specification to recommendation that does not
have two, independent implementations of every feature that are tested
to be interoperable.  We're willing to tolerate an exception to allow a
single implementation on platforms where there really is only one
implementation (that is, if the spec is a platform mapping and there is
only one implementation on that platform) but not for other reasons.
However, the other cases where the current draft proposes exceptions to
the usual process should be addressed the way other working group
specifications do:  by waiting for implementation experience, by marking
the specification of features without two implementations as
non-normative, or by deferring unimplemented features to a later level.
This prevents having to maintain compatibility with a specification that
was developed without the benefit of implementation experience, and it
prevents having specifications that document behavior that doesn't
actually work for users.


Also, the two references to a deliverable of the SVG working group when
the SVG working group isn't currently chartered seem problematic, and
should be removed.



The reviewer's organization:
   - intends to review drafts as they are published and send comments.
   - intends to develop experimental implementations and send experience
reports.
   - intends to develop products based on this work.


Comments about the deliverables:
   We can't make commitments on the *timeline* of reviewing the drafts or
working on implementations.


Answers to this questionnaire can be set and changed at
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/2018-aria-charter/ until 2018-07-27.

 Regards,

 The Automatic WBS Mailer
Received on Friday, 27 July 2018 19:24:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:30:33 UTC