Re: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support

I asked Chaals because he knows more about the process than most. He 
told me that a browser extension would be considered an implementation, 
but that it would need to demonstrate reasonable adoption and that there 
was an eco-system to support adoption.

My understanding is that the browser extensions would need to be 
available and in use by a reasonable number of people, and that enough 
websites would need to be using the feature to make adoption of the 
extensions worthwhile.

For many specs this is usually straight-forward because the 
implementations are browsers that are downloaded by millions of people, 
and as soon as a feature lands in a browser lots of authors start to use 
that feature in websites etc. For something like an SC it's going to be 
harder to demonstrate adoption I think.

Whatever "reasonable" might look like in terms of adoption and/or the 
eco-system in this case, it has to be enough to convince both the WG and 
ultimately the AC that the feature has sufficient interoperability.

I've copied Chaals (who is not on the WG list), in case I've 
misrepresented or misunderstood anything here.

Léonie
-- 
@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem

On 07/02/2017 15:46, lisa.seeman wrote:
> Hi Leonie
>
> If I understand you correctly having two browser extensions for
> different popular browsers would address the need for interoperability
> for each feature that is supported.
> Is that correct?
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Tue, 07 Feb 2017 16:08:11 +0200 *Léonie Watson<tink@tink.uk>*
> wrote ----
>
>     It is my understanding that each feature of the specification needs to
>     conform to the interoperability requirements of the W3C Process [1].
>
>     This generally means that there are independent and publicly available
>     UAs that implement each feature of the spec. The accepted minimum is
>     two
>     implementations for each feature.
>
>
>
>     For example: the ARIA specifications use accessibility APIs (which are
>     supported in browsers) as the basis for interoperability. The HTML spec
>     uses browsers as its primary means of demonstrating interoperability.
>
>     So websites and apps that implement a particular feature/solution are
>     not valid implementations in this context, but browsers, browser
>     extensions and other publicly available UAs are.
>
>     Léonie
>     [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/AB/raw-file/default/cover.html
>     --
>     @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>     On 06/02/2017 20:16, lisa.seeman wrote:
>     >
>     > Hi Folks
>     >
>     > We urgently need consensus on what is sufficient support. This
>     will help
>     > us know what we can put to pull request and what we need to
>     rewrite (we
>     > may need to rewrite for other reasons but that is a diffrent issue)
>     >
>     >
>     > For example for personalization
>     > <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/6> (issues #6) we have
>     > 1. an editors draft that is reasonably mature of the semantics.
>     > (at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/) for now let us
>     > assume it will be a working draft by the time WCAG 2.1 gets to CR.
>     > 2. An open source script for an implementation that any author can
>     > import into their page to enable personalization in any browser)
>     It has
>     > some old semantics but it is being refracted now and that should
>     be done
>     > by the end of february - see
>     > https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation
>     > 3. We have volunteers working on a free, open source browser
>     extension
>     > for chrome so the user can apply personalization to any page using
>     the
>     > semantics - that should be done by the end of march. It would have
>     three
>     > personalization skins for different types of users.
>     >
>     > We also have two industry partners who intend to implement it, but
>     these
>     > solutions may be closed. We also have an EU project (SMART4MD) who
>     are
>     > designing an APP for people living with dementia who will be
>     compatible
>     > with it. (work started over a year ago)
>     >
>     > What else exactly do we need for the group to feel we met the
>     minimum bar.
>     >
>     > Note that I am sure we all want a lot more implementations. But it
>     will
>     > be easier to get implementations when we are in WCAG. What we need to
>     > know is what is the minimum.
>     >
>     > All the best
>     >
>     > Lisa Seeman
>     >
>     > LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
>     > <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>     >
>     >
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 18:20:44 UTC