Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] WebXR Device API (#545)

Hi WebXR folks! Thanks for this opportunity. The TAG is very happy with the course this work has taken, and we are generally satisfied with the explainer and the shape of the API.

One critical comment however: We note that in Alice's original [comment from a year ago](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/403#issuecomment-527299905) she mentions accessibility as one of the areas of concern. It seems from the spec like no work has been done in this area - there is no mention of accessibility in the spec. We seem to remember a separate accessibility requirements document being worked on but there is no mention of this or sign of this in the top level repo. We feel like there should be some additional mention of this - even if it's non-normative - just to indicate what work has happened so far, considering this was one of the issues raised in the last review?

In the previous review comments Brandon specifically [said](https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/403#issuecomment-528147224) "I think it would be more productive for us to outline our current thinking about accessibility in a separate doc which we'll link here." 

Alice also had some specific questions that weren't answered.  

- *Could the Web Audio, Vibration and Gamepad APIs make use of XRViewerPose to provide this immersive experience? How does that work with the frame-based mechanism for updating the XRViewerPose? Could the explainer (or another document) provide some example code for linking these things together?*
- *For users who require magnification, might it make sense to have an option on the viewport to perform appropriate scaling automatically?*

On a meta level: this is a new technology, and the very best time to think about accessibility is when things are being newly designed. It would be a true missed opportunity to exclude disabled people for years until the technology "catches up", when it could instead be designed with many more diverse needs in mind.

We believe there actually *is* on going work in the working group to address this; it would be enough just to have visible artifacts available to see exactly what work is being done, and to enable participation as appropriate.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/545#issuecomment-697219461