Re: [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.

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

Peter

On Jun 19, 2021, at 6:24 AM, Sarah Horton <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>