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

for extension that is AT - - I think the formula is a bit different  (e.g. if the extension works on all sites without the site needing to do anything ) 
but for an extension that relies on both the extension being installed and content on the website — this looks like a good set of assumptions/requirements. 


Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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 <http://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/ <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>>, Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa <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>
>>    >
>>    >