RE: accessibility review (was Re: I strongly urge...)

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> 
> Where do I find information on the accessibility review?

...and
> 
> Has this feedback been documented online somewhere?
 

Norbert,

As an active member of the current HTML5 Accessibility Task Force, I was
present at the latest Face-to-Face meeting of the HTML WG held at PayPal in
San Jose April 23-24. 

To be clear, there was no "review" of EME per-se, however the Accessibility
Task Force did have an opportunity to have a candid and frank discussion
with the engineers working on EME as part of that meeting. Minutes from that
part of the 2-day sessions can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/2013/04/23-html-wg-minutes.html#item12

Having followed the progress of the EME (and also, notoriously, being the
person who first filed the original "DRM Bug" against HTML5 -
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10902) I have made it a point
of trying to stay informed on this topic.

Since EME *IS NOT* a DRM solution, but rather a simple API, there are no
apparent accessibility issues with the Draft Specification, as it generally
does not touch the UI layer. 

The Accessibility Task Force (a11yTF) did have some questions surrounding
the encryption of "supporting content" (such as captions, transcripts,
descriptive text/audio, picture-in-picture sign language interpretation,
etc.), especially when that content might originate from an alternative
source (i.e. a 3rd party provider). There were also questions around the
impact of "in-band" versus "out-of-band" content support, however there was
no specific problem or solution discussed at that meeting. 

While currently there does not appear to be a need/desire for this level of
encryption on supporting materials from the content providers seeking
Content Protection today, the engineers are now aware of the possible
"gotchas" that might surface should this become a requirement down the road.
And while we were *NOT* discussing a W3C DRM solution, those same engineers
were made aware of past problems that Assistive Technology has encountered
with earlier DRM implementations. This was a useful conversation for the
browser vendors as well, and the general tone of the discussion was
collegial, productive and useful (as most W3C Face-to-Face meetings are).

I think the point that Mark is/was making is more to the effect that the
W3C, unlike many other standards bodies, has a mechanism in place that not
only allows, but encourages and fosters this kind of "Open" discussion and
dialog, so that we can be sure that all viewpoints and concerns can be
heard, discussed, and acted upon - including the needs of Persons with
Disabilities. The W3C is not "the Boss" of the internet, it is but one of
many standards bodies that contributes to the open web platform. It is, from
my vantage point however, also the most open in its process, its policies,
and its inclusion of diverse view-points (do you think other standards
bodies would tolerate, never mind encourage, a mailing list dialog like this
one? I don't.)

The minutes from that April meeting do a fair job of capturing those
discussions, and serious technical questions that might arrive from reading
those minutes can be asked here on this list, and I or others can respond
with a technical or more tightly focused response as required; personally
however *I* will not respond to frivolous philosophical posturing or
baiting. 

Content Protection and Digital Rights Management are realities today,
philosophical stances aside, and my goal as an Accessibility SME and member
of the a11yTF is to ensure that persons with disabilities have the same
level of support as "able-bodied" users do with regard to being able to
interact with these technologies - I leave the judgment of the "right or
wrong" around DRM to the individual consumer and content producer: those
that are opposed to it are free to not deploy it on their content, and to
use legitimate market forces to change the minds of those that do. Believing
however that stopping the evolution of Content Protection inside of the W3C
will be the death of these technologies is foolhardy at a minimum, and naïve
at the least: those entities who have a business requirement for this type
of technology will simply move their work elsewhere and continue to work on
it - perhaps in forums less open to listening to all perspectives -
something that accessibility practitioners are only too familiar with if
history is to be believed. 

For that reason alone, I support the continued work around these
technologies within the W3C, using the truism better the devil you know,
than the one you don't (not that I am for one minute suggesting the W3C is a
devil).

JF

Further Reading: http://john.foliot.ca/drm-at-the-w3c/

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 01:00:06 UTC