Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
LGTM. Thanks David. -t On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:26 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > I submitted comments on both charters: > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0016.html > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0015.html > > (I'm still able to revise them in the next 8 hours if there's > something that needs to be modified.) > > -David > > -- > 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 > 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
I submitted comments on both charters: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0016.html https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2018Jul/0015.html (I'm still able to revise them in the next 8 hours if there's something that needs to be modified.) -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
A final clarification: On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > Even if we (Mozilla) are delayed with implementation, we can > still champion this stuff. We can still nominate someone to > participate in the WG with subject matter expertise to help guide what > we think will be more implementable features. > 1. Superficially (I haven't dug into it in detail), I don't believe anything proposed in ARIA 1.1 or 1.2 is likely to be "not implementable" or even "costly to implement" for browser vendors. It's more that the Mozilla accessibility team currently doesn't have anyone who can devote time to working on new spec things. To put it melodramatically, with current resourcing, it's likely to take us months to even get to reading the spec or implement the simplest of spec additions. I really hope this does not remain the case for too long, but that's how it is right now. 2. For the same reason, we also don't have anyone with subject matter expertise that's able (due to tie constraints) to participate meaningfully in the WG. Jamie ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
I also have a few comments on the draft APA charter at https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-apa-charter now that I've had a chance to review it. I think we should suggest that both: * the first toplevel bullet point in the scope section * the second bullet point in the success criteria section be more explicitly open about working with non-W3C groups, since I think there may be productive opportunities for such interaction, such as with the WHATWG. This is also the first time I'm seeing the work on Personalization Semantics. I wonder whether it's a good idea for this work to have its naming such that it's essentially limited to accessibility, since many of the semantics being defined seem more generally useful for cases beyond accessibility (e.g., they'd be very helpful for autofill). I wonder if they should be more general additions to the markup languages being extended rather than accessibility-specific attributes (at least based on what I think the naming is suggesting). I'm curious what others think about this, particularly the latter point. -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 10:48 PM, James Teh wrote: > TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly) > agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as > the response goes. Thanks Jamie. I very much appreciate your thoroughness. The additional details you provided below can help us with our charter response. > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik > wrote: >> >> > The only thing worth >> > noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that >> > may >> > well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be >> > "blocking >> > progress" on this front. >> >> If there were only two browser vendors (including Mozilla) then yes >> your statement would be correct. >> >> However, we have (at least) four major browser vendors, and thus it is >> incorrect to assert that Mozilla alone could be "blocking progress" >> when any 2 of the other 3 browser vendors could implement something >> and have it exit CR. > > That's fair. I suppose there's some (now irrelevant) historical context > here: it used to be that Mozilla championed this stuff and drove others to > push accessibility forward. At present, that is not the case, and I'm > concerned it'll now be very hard to make much progress in accessibility. > Still, while that's kind of sad, I take your point that this is irrelevant > to the requirements of the charter. Got it. Even if we (Mozilla) are delayed with implementation, we can still champion this stuff. We can still nominate someone to participate in the WG with subject matter expertise to help guide what we think will be more implementable features. >> > We want "limited resources" to drive better >> > standards, yet with our resources in accessibility as limited as they >> > are at >> > this point, it's entirely likely we won't get around to implementing new >> > ARIA stuff for years. >> >> That may well be. If that is your assessment, we should add that to >> our Charter response and be quite upfront that we are unlikely to >> implement new ARIA stuff for (a few?) years, and perhaps ask >> (non-F.O.) for the WG to be postponed accordingly. > > Honestly, there is a lot of uncertainty at this point; I certainly couldn't > give any "formal" statement concerning what we might or might not implement. > FWIW, I believe Mozilla *should* implement this stuff, but that all depends > on me convincing leadership that we should provide more resources for > accessibility. :) Again, irrelevant to our charter response. Perhaps we can write a comment in support of developing new ARIA features, but admit we cannot commit to helping implement or even prototype them to prove their viability and efficacy. >> In addition per your note about "still haven't implemented parts of >> ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2.", if you know of any features in those >> specs which *no browser implements* we should call those out, and ask >> that the Charter explicitly dictate dropping them in the next version >> of ARIA for failure to get uptake. > > I'd say there's at least one implementation (probably two) of most ARIA 1.1 > stuff. I'm not sure about ARIA 1.2; I haven't even had a chance to look at > it yet. We could request a deliverable requirement of 100% testing and interop (2+ implementations) of ARIA 1.2 features for the next version of ARIA. dbaron, is this thread sufficient to write-up a response? Our response is due tomorrow (Friday 7/27) right? Thanks, Tantek ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
TL;DR: Thanks for the further explanation/clarification. I (reluctantly) agree that these concerns make sense and have nothing else to add as far as the response goes. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > > The only thing worth > > noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that may > > well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be "blocking > > progress" on this front. > > If there were only two browser vendors (including Mozilla) then yes > your statement would be correct. > > However, we have (at least) four major browser vendors, and thus it is > incorrect to assert that Mozilla alone could be "blocking progress" > when any 2 of the other 3 browser vendors could implement something > and have it exit CR. > That's fair. I suppose there's some (now irrelevant) historical context here: it used to be that Mozilla championed this stuff and drove others to push accessibility forward. At present, that is not the case, and I'm concerned it'll now be very hard to make much progress in accessibility. Still, while that's kind of sad, I take your point that this is irrelevant to the requirements of the charter. > > We want "limited resources" to drive better > > standards, yet with our resources in accessibility as limited as they > are at > > this point, it's entirely likely we won't get around to implementing new > > ARIA stuff for years. > > That may well be. If that is your assessment, we should add that to > our Charter response and be quite upfront that we are unlikely to > implement new ARIA stuff for (a few?) years, and perhaps ask > (non-F.O.) for the WG to be postponed accordingly. > Honestly, there is a lot of uncertainty at this point; I certainly couldn't give any "formal" statement concerning what we might or might not implement. FWIW, I believe Mozilla *should* implement this stuff, but that all depends on me convincing leadership that we should provide more resources for accessibility. :) Again, irrelevant to our charter response. > In addition per your note about "still haven't implemented parts of > ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2.", if you know of any features in those > specs which *no browser implements* we should call those out, and ask > that the Charter explicitly dictate dropping them in the next version > of ARIA for failure to get uptake. > I'd say there's at least one implementation (probably two) of most ARIA 1.1 stuff. I'm not sure about ARIA 1.2; I haven't even had a chance to look at it yet. Jamie ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 8:57 PM, James Teh wrote: > That all seems reasonable from a process perspective. The only thing worth > noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that may > well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be "blocking > progress" on this front. If there were only two browser vendors (including Mozilla) then yes your statement would be correct. However, we have (at least) four major browser vendors, and thus it is incorrect to assert that Mozilla alone could be "blocking progress" when any 2 of the other 3 browser vendors could implement something and have it exit CR. > We want "limited resources" to drive better > standards, yet with our resources in accessibility as limited as they are at > this point, it's entirely likely we won't get around to implementing new > ARIA stuff for years. That may well be. If that is your assessment, we should add that to our Charter response and be quite upfront that we are unlikely to implement new ARIA stuff for (a few?) years, and perhaps ask (non-F.O.) for the WG to be postponed accordingly. In addition per your note about "still haven't implemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2.", if you know of any features in those specs which *no browser implements* we should call those out, and ask that the Charter explicitly dictate dropping them in the next version of ARIA for failure to get uptake. > At that point, we have a conflict: we have Mozilla > objecting to the minimum implementation exception, while at the same time > not resourcing accessibility sufficiently to make any reasonable progress at > all. I'm not sure we can have it "both ways". This is absolutely not in conflict, because as noted, 2 of the other 3 browser vendors can make progress independent of Mozilla. What we are saying is we are against any accessibility features being "standardized" for which their interoperable implementability is unproven (by anyone, not just by us). It is much worse to have something out there claiming to be a standard (a W3C Recommendation), when either no one is supporting it (hence fiction), or there is only one implementation (not a standard, because there is no interop). Tantek > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tantek Çelik > wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron >> > wrote: >> > >> >> So some comments on the ARIA charter at >> >> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : >> >> ... >> >> 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, >> > >> > It is. However, the problem is that accessibility in general is severely >> > lacking in resources across browser vendors (especially Mozilla!; we're >> > currently working with just 2 engineers). Even where browser vendors >> > agree >> > on how something *should* be done, it often takes months or years before >> > it >> > gets implemented, primarily due to the aforementioned resource shortage. >> > We >> > (Mozilla) still haven't implemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA >> > 1.2. >> > The reality is that if multiple implementations were required for >> > sign-off, >> > it'd probably delay the process for years. >> >> Respectfully, I disagree with that use of process, and those >> unimplemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2 should probably >> have been dropped and/or postponed to future versions. >> >> The reality is that if a standard does not reflect what is >> implemented/implementable (and yes, economic constraints / costs, >> resource are a legitimate reason to criticize something as not being >> implementable), then it should not be in the standard. >> >> A better answer when something lacks multiple implementations is: >> 1. if there is only one implementation, move it to an informative >> (non-normative) appendix >> 2. if there are zero implementations, cut it and postpone it to the >> next +0.1 version >> >> By following such a methodology, there is no need to delay "for >> years". You ship the spec (go to PR) with what happens to be supported >> as of that point in time, then work on the next +0.1 version to ship >> the next year and repeat, hopefully increasing the number of features >> that are interoperable implemented. >> >> > and >> >> allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as >> >> success seems pretty bad. >> >> >> > Same issue as above regarding limited resources. Still, this one is a >> > little more concerning because it raises questions about whether the >> > remaining 25% will *ever* be implementable. >> >> Right, same issue with implementability, and same answer (1, 2 above). >> >> We (especially Mozilla) want "limited resources" to be a forcing >> function to drive better standards, simpler to implement, test, debug, >> secure, etc. >> >> No user benefits from
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
That all seems reasonable from a process perspective. The only thing worth noting is that while you say there's no need to delay for years, that may well be what ends up happening, and Mozilla will essentially be "blocking progress" on this front. We want "limited resources" to drive better standards, yet with our resources in accessibility as limited as they are at this point, it's entirely likely we won't get around to implementing new ARIA stuff for years. At that point, we have a conflict: we have Mozilla objecting to the minimum implementation exception, while at the same time not resourcing accessibility sufficiently to make any reasonable progress at all. I'm not sure we can have it "both ways". Jamie On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron > wrote: > > > >> So some comments on the ARIA charter at > >> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : > >> ... > >> 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, > > > > It is. However, the problem is that accessibility in general is severely > > lacking in resources across browser vendors (especially Mozilla!; we're > > currently working with just 2 engineers). Even where browser vendors > agree > > on how something *should* be done, it often takes months or years before > it > > gets implemented, primarily due to the aforementioned resource shortage. > We > > (Mozilla) still haven't implemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA > 1.2. > > The reality is that if multiple implementations were required for > sign-off, > > it'd probably delay the process for years. > > Respectfully, I disagree with that use of process, and those > unimplemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2 should probably > have been dropped and/or postponed to future versions. > > The reality is that if a standard does not reflect what is > implemented/implementable (and yes, economic constraints / costs, > resource are a legitimate reason to criticize something as not being > implementable), then it should not be in the standard. > > A better answer when something lacks multiple implementations is: > 1. if there is only one implementation, move it to an informative > (non-normative) appendix > 2. if there are zero implementations, cut it and postpone it to the > next +0.1 version > > By following such a methodology, there is no need to delay "for > years". You ship the spec (go to PR) with what happens to be supported > as of that point in time, then work on the next +0.1 version to ship > the next year and repeat, hopefully increasing the number of features > that are interoperable implemented. > > > and > >> allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as > >> success seems pretty bad. > >> > > Same issue as above regarding limited resources. Still, this one is a > > little more concerning because it raises questions about whether the > > remaining 25% will *ever* be implementable. > > Right, same issue with implementability, and same answer (1, 2 above). > > We (especially Mozilla) want "limited resources" to be a forcing > function to drive better standards, simpler to implement, test, debug, > secure, etc. > > No user benefits from unimplemented standards. > > If anything, such "specifiction" causes harm in that it can cause > false expectations of what "works", wasting web developer time and > resources. > > Tantek > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 6:04 PM, James Teh wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > >> So some comments on the ARIA charter at >> https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : >> ... >> 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, > > It is. However, the problem is that accessibility in general is severely > lacking in resources across browser vendors (especially Mozilla!; we're > currently working with just 2 engineers). Even where browser vendors agree > on how something *should* be done, it often takes months or years before it > gets implemented, primarily due to the aforementioned resource shortage. We > (Mozilla) still haven't implemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2. > The reality is that if multiple implementations were required for sign-off, > it'd probably delay the process for years. Respectfully, I disagree with that use of process, and those unimplemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2 should probably have been dropped and/or postponed to future versions. The reality is that if a standard does not reflect what is implemented/implementable (and yes, economic constraints / costs, resource are a legitimate reason to criticize something as not being implementable), then it should not be in the standard. A better answer when something lacks multiple implementations is: 1. if there is only one implementation, move it to an informative (non-normative) appendix 2. if there are zero implementations, cut it and postpone it to the next +0.1 version By following such a methodology, there is no need to delay "for years". You ship the spec (go to PR) with what happens to be supported as of that point in time, then work on the next +0.1 version to ship the next year and repeat, hopefully increasing the number of features that are interoperable implemented. > and >> allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as >> success seems pretty bad. >> > Same issue as above regarding limited resources. Still, this one is a > little more concerning because it raises questions about whether the > remaining 25% will *ever* be implementable. Right, same issue with implementability, and same answer (1, 2 above). We (especially Mozilla) want "limited resources" to be a forcing function to drive better standards, simpler to implement, test, debug, secure, etc. No user benefits from unimplemented standards. If anything, such "specifiction" causes harm in that it can cause false expectations of what "works", wasting web developer time and resources. Tantek ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:09 AM, L. David Baron wrote: > So some comments on the ARIA charter at > https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : > ... > 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, It is. However, the problem is that accessibility in general is severely lacking in resources across browser vendors (especially Mozilla!; we're currently working with just 2 engineers). Even where browser vendors agree on how something *should* be done, it often takes months or years before it gets implemented, primarily due to the aforementioned resource shortage. We (Mozilla) still haven't implemented parts of ARIA 1.1, let alone ARIA 1.2. The reality is that if multiple implementations were required for sign-off, it'd probably delay the process for years. and > allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as > success seems pretty bad. > Same issue as above regarding limited resources. Still, this one is a little more concerning because it raises questions about whether the remaining 25% will *ever* be implementable. Also, the two references to a deliverable of the SVG working group > when the SVG working group isn't currently chartered seems > problematic. > Ah, yes, that does seem like a problem. Jamie ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 9:09 AM, L. David Baron 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
objecting.
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 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=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=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
Thanks,
Tantek
___
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
So some comments on the ARIA charter at https://www.w3.org/2018/03/draft-aria-charter : 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. 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 allowing only 75% of mappings to be implemented to count as success seems pretty bad. Also, the two references to a deliverable of the SVG working group when the SVG working group isn't currently chartered seems problematic. I think otherwise this seems fine. -David 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 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=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=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 > > > > -- > > 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 > > 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 > > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > > What I was walling in or walling out, > > And to whom I was like to give offense. > >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > > > ___ > > dev-platform mailing list > > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > > -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 Before I built a wall I'd ask to know What I was walling in or walling out, And to whom I was like to give offense. - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charters: Accessibility (APA and ARIA Working Groups)
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 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=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=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 > > -- > 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 > 턢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know > What I was walling in or walling out, > And to whom I was like to give offense. >- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914) > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
