RE: [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated

Peter, Sarah:


From: Korn, Peter
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2021 4:02 PM
To: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
Cc: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com>; public-silver@w3.org; janina@sajka.net
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated

Sarah,

I am concerned about your item 3 below.  Both for reasons of scale, as well as the nature of the some inaccessible services, and in some cases controlling law, providing an accessible alternative may not be possible.

I expect there are ways to finesse such guidance, but I don’t think the Conformance section of the specification is the place to do that. Not that we know we’re adding third party related statements throughout the outcomes for each guideline, and also in the testing section, we should avoid trying to put the kitchen sink into the conformance section. Somewhere there’s the appropriate place to encourage, even strongly encourage content publishers to seek out the most accessible third party services, to push for more accessible media, and to provide well crafted supported for accessible user generated content.

What we’re also struggling with here are the situations where, for whatever reason, the fully accessible option just isn’t available. We need to do our best to guide content publishers in that situation, too.

For item number two, I would go a little bit further: “strongly encouraged…“

We could, but that would struggle with our current RFC2119 language under “Steps to Conform.” Currently, advising the upstream service/media provider is listed as “SHOULD,” which doesn’t sound much like “strongly.” If we really want to go for “strongly,” I would propose to move that “SHOULD” into an additional “MUST” item.

Best,

Janina

Peter


On Jun 19, 2021, at 6:24 AM, Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com<mailto:sarah.horton@gmail.com>> wrote:


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Thanks, Peter.

Do you think it makes sense to add something along those lines to the proposal? For example:

…this proposal attempts to develop the Conformance portion of more nuanced guidance for the web content publisher, who is asked to:

  1.  Clearly indicate to users where the 3rd party content is.
  2.  Encourage the providers of that third party content to make it fully accessible.
  3.  Provide the inaccessible/not fully accessible content or service through alternative methods.

On Jun 18, 2021, at 6:06 PM, Korn, Peter <pkorn@lab126.com<mailto:pkorn@lab126.com>> wrote:

Sarah, all,

I think it makes sense for a site to offer alternatives where they exist. Depending upon the nature of the inaccessible/not fully accessible third-party service, there may not be an alternative.

Thanks,

Peter

From: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com<mailto:sarah.horton@gmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 9:30 AM
To: Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>>
Cc: public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>; janina@sajka.net<mailto:janina@sajka.net>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [Conformance] Third Party Draft Updated

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.


Hi, Janina.

What about requiring authors (web content publishers) to provide alternatives for inaccessible third party content? For example, in Use Case B, where the page has a statement about third-party payment processing above the embedded inaccessible author arranged service content (PaymentFriend), the statement could include details about other methods to purchase merchandise, which the authors (local scouting group) would be responsible for providing.

Thanks for all the great work on this!

Best,
Sarah




On Jun 18, 2021, at 3:55 PM, Sajka, Janina <sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>> wrote:


Colleagues:

I believe I’ve captured the edits we agreed during our teleconference of 17 June, namely:


  *   Added to the (introductory) Problem Statement to indicate our goals in this document up top;
  *   Added Wilco’s language (and made a more definitive assertion) in the Editor’s Note at the top of the Steps to Conform section;
  *   Added a phrase to the examples in the last step of User Generated to point to outcomes (rather than further enumerating types of content prompting).
Please provide additional edits and suggestions. I will monitor here over the next few days as we prepare for our presentation Tuesday.

For convenience our draft is at:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/task-forces/silver/wiki/Proposal_on_Third_Party_Content


Best,

Janina



----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>