On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> So some comments on the ARIA charter at
> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter :

tl;dr: We should show general support for work happening in this area
(per Jamie's email), however we should point out critical flaws in the
charter ("75%" etc.), formally object unless they are fixed, and add
explicit support/agreement with any other parties similarly formally

Details inline:

> So one concern I've heard about these charters and that I probably
> share is that the ARIA charter says:
>   For every platform with mappings in an Accessibility API Mapping
>   specification, at least one implementation of 75% of the mappings
>   being tested on that platform will demonstrate implementability on
>   that platform. Multiple implementations of each platform are not
>   required because some platforms have only one implementation. For
>   features that are not platform-specific, passing test results in
>   at least two different implementations will be documented to
>   demonstrate implementability.
> This is a substantial weakening of the W3C's usual rules for
> demonstrating interoperability, and seems likely to be a bad
> precedent.

Yes and yes.

IIRC we had similar concerns about a previous Proposed Recommendation,
regarding the "at least one implementation ... on that platform", that
was accessibility related, and exiting CR without a confirmed (via
test suite) implementation for every feature. I can't seem to find it
in dev-platform however.

>  I guess it seems OK to have only one implementation
> if there's really only going to be one implementation on that
> platform...
> but allowing it in general (i.e.,  seems less than ideal, and

Is there some way we can ask to make this tighter (less loose)?

E.g. on platforms which only one existing implementation of previous
related spec(s)?

Like if a platform has multiple implementations already, then it is
reasonable to require 2+ implementations passing tests.

> allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as
> success seems pretty bad.

I read that as only 75% as being implementable, and 25% being
aspirational, which is not a good way to do standards, for anyone.  We
don't want specs with 25% specifiction.

We should insist that all features (including all mappings) be:
1. demonstrated to be implementable
2. pass the tests for them

If a feature is not implemented, or if it lacks tests, it should not
be able to exit CR.

We should formally object on this "75%" point.

> Also, the two references to a deliverable of the SVG working group
> when the SVG working group isn't currently chartered seems
> problematic.

Agreed, we should insist (FO) that be fixed (removed?).

> I think otherwise this seems fine.

Those were the big problems I found as well.

We should see if anyone else has filed similar criticisms and
explicitly state agreement with any that seem to agree in spirit with
the problems we see.

> On Thursday 2018-07-12 16:06 +1000, James Teh wrote:
>> I (and others in the accessibility team) think we should support these
>> charters. The ARIA working group is especially important in the future
>> evolution of web accessibility. I have some potential concerns/questions
>> regarding the personalisation semantics specifications from APA, but
>> they're more spec questions at this point and I don't think they need to be
>> raised with respect to charter. Certainly, cognitive disabilities is an
>> area that definitely needs a great deal more attention on the web, and the
>> APA are seeking to do that.
>> Thanks.
>> Jamie
>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 3:57 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> > The W3C is proposing revised charters for:
>> >
>> >   Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group
>> >   https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter
>> >
>> >   Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) Working Group
>> >   https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter
>> >
>> >   https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jun/0003.html
>> >
>> > Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through
>> > Friday, July 27.
>> >
>> > The changes relative to the previous charters are:
>> > https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%
>> > 2Fwww.w3.org%2F2015%2F10%2Fapa-charter&doc2=https%3A%
>> > 2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2F03%2Fdraft-apa-charter
>> > https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%
>> > 2Fwww.w3.org%2F2015%2F10%2Faria-charter&doc2=https%3A%
>> > 2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2F03%2Fdraft-aria-charter
>> >
>> > Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should
>> > say as part of this charter review, or if you think we should
>> > support or oppose it.
>> >
>> > -David


dev-platform mailing list

Reply via email to