Re: [Conformance] Agenda for Thursday 17 February

Gregg

———————————
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us



> On Feb 17, 2022, at 10:03 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> 
> Noting we're on Friday's Silver agenda, and thanking Shadi for the fine
> work preparing this document, I nevertheless have a few nits on the
> current content--nothing I would insist on, though. Herewith just a few
> minor points ahead of our call.
> 
> 1. Introduction Note should be less categorical; e.g. "may be considered"
> rather than will." Rationale: There's no reason to stumble because of this ansilary
> possibility at this time. I expect we'll be contributing to normative
> glossary definitions, but that isn't our point at this time--so let's
> leave wiggle room here.

AGREE

> 
> 2. Scenario 1.2 refers to audio descriptions, as does WCAG 2.x. However,
> the HTML 5 spec, based on requirements published in the Media Accessibility
> User Requirements (MAUR)<http://www.w3.org/TR/media-accessibility-reqs/>
> supports descriptions of video as delivered either as audio or textual
> alternatives, and we even have an open source library supporting textual
> descriptions of visual content courtessy of Nigel Megitt. Why does it
> matter? Because the cost is so much less if textual alternatives for
> video are understood to be available and acceptable. I suggest supporting
> affordable accessibility is a reasonable goal.

DON’T UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE PROPOSING.

CHANGE "AUDIO DESCRIPTION"  TO  ….. (WHAT WORDS?) 

(AGREE THAT WE SHOULD USE STANDARD INTERNATIONAL TERMS FOR THIS ) 

> 
> 3. Situation 8; Policy section mentions news. Perhaps severe weather
> alerts and live shooter alerts might be more compelling than the more
> amorphous "news" category? e.g. sports news would not rise to the same level
> of immediate importance.

AGREE

> 
> 4. In situation 11.1 add something like "as prompted by the site
> authoring tool provided by the ISP" for the statement on providing sufficient
> contrast, text alternatives, headings, etc. I think we're teasing out the
> reliance the small business owner is placing on their ISP. Without the ISP
> they'd not ge able to get themselves on line. A certain reasonable standard
> for privacy and sensitive data security is presumed, and often specified in
> such situations. I believe we are insisting there's a reasonable expectation
> of accessibility support in the ISP's tooling as well.

MY ISP IS VERIZON AND DOESNT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WEBSITES. 

ALTHOUGH AN ISP MIGHT PROVIDE WEB SITE SERVICES — MAYBE WE SHOULD SAY — "THE WEBSITE HOSTING/CREATING SERVICE" OR SOME SUCH. 

> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka
> (she/her/hers)
> https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup: http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 15:35:03 UTC