TAG/MeetCandidates2023/Matthew Atkinson
Matthew Atkinson - TAG Candidate 2023
These are Matthew Atkinson's answers to the 2023 TAG Candidate Questions.
You can also read Matthew Atkinson's nomination statement here.
Quotes from the minutes are not verbatim, and may not accurately reflect the candidate's statements.
What's an interesting question about how the Web’s architecture should evolve that you've come across recently?
Answer here.
What are the technical trends you notice are happening on the Web, and what implications do you see for the work of the W3C?
From the minutes...
There's been an increase in delivering services at the edge. This can be grouped under an umbrella of decentralization. This comes with interesting ramifications; e.g. XR. XR is more upload-heavy than other applications. This has implications for network design, which is not traditionally an area for W3C so we'll have to work more with other orgs. There's also a big transition and opportunity in identity management. The TAG has already started drafting something about this.
A bit more subtle: using the web on a wide range of different devices, there are opportunities for user agents to be agents that act in the interest of the user. There's been talk of this in the workshop on permissions
Expanding on the minutes a little…
Decentralisation could encompass edge and networking trends, and also application-level decentralisation/federation. It remains to be seen how much of a trend the latter is, but I think the edge changes are fairly solid trends, and will require us to work with external organisations to resolve. This allows us to use our skills in building consensus to the benefit of the wider community. We are of course already doing some of this, by way of the Web and Networks IG.
Identity management – as minuted, this presents a great opportunity and I’m excited to follow the TAG’s drafting of the principle about it, and thinking about how we could support this technologically.
Regarding User Agents really growing into the role of being User Agents: at the W3C Workshop on Permissions in 2022, some aspects of this were discussed, in the context of when/how to show permissions prompts, but ‘agent-ness’ is a much more general issue. With the web being accessed on a range of devices (with more to come), we have an opportunity for the UA to grow its capabilities, and act on behalf of the user in novel ways. I am not sure where this fits within W3C – it’s a horizontal sort of thing, but clearly W3C would have a great opportunity to steward such work, if there was interest in it.
What should the TAG's role be in reviewing WG charters?
From the minutes...
I noted consistency in my statement; in APA WG we noted that the earlier we pick up on issues the better. Investment in early design reviews is important and has payoffs later.
Small clarification: Max mentioned consistency in his answer to the question on trends (I answered after Max), and I had consistency in my notes too. The question on trends was asked directly before this one - the note on consistency in the minutes accidentally fell into this section from the one above.
On this question: I think TAG should review charters, at least to get an idea of the direction that a group wants to take with its deliverables, as we wouldn't want a lot of effort to go into work before getting a preliminary review. I realise this would take time away from the design reviews – which are critical – but, as we have seen in the Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) WG's horizontal review work, the earlier we can review, and start building a relationship with a group, the better.
Maps are increasingly important, but maps are done in javascript today, making them inaccessible. How do you feel about adding maps to the web platform?
From the minutes...
Workshops are great, also bringing results that have higher performance and greater safety. Maps are used in many different ways. Providing equitable user experiences is important. This might not be the same thing; information can be presented in alternative modalities.
Slight clarification: I was acknowledging Jeffery and Daniel (Appelquist)’s answers that mentioned the benefits of better performance, and the value of workshops in building understanding and consensus.
Likewise, I am in favour of adding maps, and making them as accessible as possible by default. In addition: it is important to consider why a map is being used, in order to provide an equitable user experience for people who encounter accessibility barriers, or for people who are using the map in a different modality than visually. Sometimes, being able to present exact geographical or routing data is key. Sometimes, a simple ordered list of proximity of the highlighted locations to the user may be sufficient, and take less time for the user to navigate. Of course, we (or, rather, the content author) should present both options to the user - and there are other use cases, and solutions, in-between those two extremes.
So yes, absolutely in favour of adding them.
An extra thought [not mentioned on the call]: We have a lot of good experience in the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) groups to draw on, and could work with the WAI groups to create guidance on how to provide accessible maps, and equivalent alternatives, for different use cases.
How do you think the appointed TAG seats should be used?
Answer here.
Has the TAG been taking the wrong approach in any of its recent activities, and if so, what would you change?
From the minutes...
I didn't find anything I'd consider wrong, but it's clear there is a huge demand for design reviews and those are super important. Sometimes there's a misunderstanding about terminology and the explainer format has been very helpful; thanks to the TAG for that format. Asynchronous work is empowering but sometimes a 5-minute call helps solve things quickly and it should be easier to schedule those.
What can the TAG and W3C do about the environmental and social impacts of the Web?
From the minutes...
This is interesting because the TAG is not required to give permission; it's a consensus thing, an awareness thing, an education thing. We don't have horizontal review for ethical and sustainable work. From the perspective of someone asking for a review, the TAG might be the only place such awareness and education comes across, so the onus would be on the TAG to improve awareness.
How do you see the TAG filling a gap in technical leadership?
Answer here.
What is the most important problem the Web Platform faces that the TAG could reasonably address?
From the minutes...
There are things which might be trends but I was thinking about that work. I think it's subtle, but key, which is consistency. Not just interop but a holistic view of the web platform and its ethos and what is idiomatic. That will help make solutions which fit. If they fit, they will be used and will go into end products. That's the TAG mission and core expertise. TAG does it very well. People talk about design reviews. There are other other challenges, exciting ones, TAG can address. Key one is consistency of the web platform and bringing it along as it develops.
What values will you bring to the TAG that other candidates might disagree with?
Answer here.
What do you see as the role of the TAG in relation to regulators?
From the minutes...
There's trend to get work done we'll need to work more closely with external groups. I agree the core competency of the TAG is tech review. When we speak to external parties we need to remember that. Part of my work is outreach. We do stick to facts. We talk about WCAG. We could stick to a similar model. Educating regulators. Not sure how much in TAG remit. That's a W3C wide question. It's a good one.
What are examples of W3C work that's not really in scope, and of work elsewhere that could be in W3C's scope?
From the minutes...
Largely we're doing things ok. Sometimes something in CG or larger org. does communicate w/ TAG, might not be TAG related. But as a horizontal review group, we'd love to provide input on more regular basis. Projects could be open UI, there's a CG. They have excellent a11y work. They do ask for comment review. We do get insight. Broader horizontal review would be good. We don't have the remit. Another more removed, Project Fugu and they might have reached out to TAG. Might be great to help smooth things along. I'm glad to see W3C are building relationships w/ metaverse standards forum.
What specific things did you accomplish in your previous TAG term, or plan to accomplish in your first TAG term?
From the minutes...
I'd like to learn the process and how the group operates. I know it's different. In terms of output, contributing a11y experience to design review. It's a main thing I say I can offer. As part of that I'd look for patterns to accessibility concerns. If there are patterns, can we address them earlier in the design process. Any awareness raising. Any changes to a11y checklist to get to concerns earlier. Possibly in horizontal review or outreach. A lot of resources to lean on to help people to mature a11y dimension. Also I like making tools to help solve problems. I am working a a tool to wrap the design process more accessibly. Any opportunities for tools, I'd help. Also as I mentioned before, charter review.
What is your experience/expertise on browser-based front-end and server-backed or back-end standards?
From the minutes...
My experience is limited in this area. I'd be reaching out like Jeffrey. Limited experience in server to server. Mostly browser etc., but there's been some experience w/ [???] API. Users can decide on load. you might think there's not much for a11y, for eg: video streams. But if you need to drop streams, you can't drop pin stream, might be sign language. Low language API stuff does have a11y interest. I would love to get in the details.
What organizational or technical skills will you bring to the TAG?
From the minutes...
I'll mention a11y again. I'm co- chair of a group. I've been an a11y consultant. Mainly a11y technical and horizontal skills. Building consensus. Developing original stuff. I also mentioned tooling. I'm keen to check out what Jeffrey mentions. Also exposure to how other groups work. That's exposed me to tech and how other groups work. Hopefully I'd be able to advise on different ways of working.