RE: HTML A11y TF feedback on Web Payments WG charter

> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: 03 September 2015 18:32

> > On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:18 AM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > In the opening "mission statement" section, the benefits of reducing
> > fragmentation are listed. It would be good for accessibility to be
> > included in this list, perhaps by changing this benefit:
> >
> > "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for
> > consumers as a result of increased choice and standardized flows and
> experiences."
> >
> > To something like:
> >
> > "Improved transparency and confidence in digital payments for
> > consumers as a result of increased choice and standardized flows and
> > accessible experiences.”
> 
> Did the accessibility task force discuss how the chartered work of this
group
> would create more accessible experiences?

We didn't. We wanted to surface the accessibility thinking the IG has
already done (and which the WG will presumably continue to do). For example,
including accessibility considerations in the use cases document, or
considering how people with disabilities will need to interact with web
payment systems and ensure that the underlying APIs and interfaces are able
to support those modes of interaction.

> 
> > In section 3.2 (Optional deliverables) a card payments recommendation
> > is proposed. In the list of things such a recommendation could
> > achieve, it would be good to mention accessibility. Perhaps by adding
the
> following:
> >
> > "Demonstrate how to present a debit-pull digital payment scheme
> > interface that is accessible and usable by consumers.”
> 
> One thing to note about this charter is that we say "This group is
chartered to
> standardize programming interfaces; not user interfaces.” So when you say
> “present an interface that is accessible” do you mean “a user interface” ?
I
> want to be sure that statements in the charter are self-consistent.


We did, and that sounds like a misunderstanding on our part. We read this
section as an intention to build a demonstration web payment system based on
the APIs and/or interfaces the WG will produce - and that as such, any demo
should be accessible.

> 
> > The last thing is a minor nit, but in section 4.2 (Other W3C groups),
> > should it be APA instead of PF?
> 
> If that group exists when we launch this one, we can make that change.
Until
> then, I think we should stay with our current inclusive verbiage:
>   "Protocols and Formats Working Group (and successor)”


That sounds entirely reasonable.

Léonie.

-- 
Senior accessibility engineer @PacielloGroup @LeonieWatson

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 10:05:58 UTC