w3c/wbs-design or
by mail to sysreq.
W3C
Site Navigation
Nearby
Results of Questionnaire Approval of charters for APA and ARIA
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2015-05-21 to 2015-05-27.
20 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
- Draft charter for Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
- Draft charter for ARIA Working Group
- Participation in the new groups
1. Draft charter for Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group
Please review the draft charter for Accessible Platform Architectures. This is the specification review group.
Do you support creation of the Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group to continue part of the PFWG mission as described in this draft charter document?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 19 |
| no | 1 |
Details
| Responder | Draft charter for Accessible Platform Architectures Working Group | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Janina Sajka | yes | |
| Michael Cooper | yes | |
| Matthew King | yes | |
| Stefan Schnabel | no | I believe this group has a valuable mission but time constrains prohibit participation in both groups. |
| Jason White | yes | I expect to participate in the research-oriented aspects of this group. I do not anticipate committing significant time to spec review, unless I am working for other reasons on issues that a spec needing review addresses. Note that this situation would be unchanged if the APA and ARIA working groups were combined as originally proposed. |
| Steve Faulkner | yes | |
| Jason Kiss | yes | |
| Bryan Garaventa | yes | I support the group, however I have approximately 8 hours per week allotted for W3C activity, so my participation within both groups will probably not be equal as a result. As a result, I'll probably not be able to join this one at present since I am not certain if I could keep up with the dual commitment between both. |
| Joanmarie Diggs | yes | |
| Matt Garrish | yes | |
| Léonie Watson | yes | I strongly support APA and the work it does. A couple of things for consideration with regard to the words of the charter though... The APA scope contains 13 items. This is high for a WG (that even in its current form) has limited active participation. It might be worth revisiting the scope to make sure that every item is unique, feasible and necessary? For example, this item: "Coordinate with accessibility proponents in W3C technical groups to help ensure accessibility solutions are developed in a consistent manner across technologies and to ensure that accessibility needs are addressed at an appropriate part of the technology stack;" Doesn't seem to substantively differ from this item: "Involve accessibility proponents in other fora - such as the WAI Interest Group, community groups, coordination activities, and other centers of expertise - to maximize the knowledge and impact brought to the group's activities;" A scratch replacement might be: "Co-ordinate with representatives from W3C technical groups to ensure solutions are developed in an accessible manner, and that accessibility is considered appropriately throughout the technology stack. Technical group representatives are encouraged to participate in the WAI IG and other co-ordination forums." NB: I'm not comfortable with the term "accessibility proponent". Would prefer the charter to use language that implicitly conveys that accessibility is everyone's responsibility. The following two items also seem as though they could be combined: "Collect information about technology features, implementation, and usage patterns to institutionalize W3C knowledge about present-day accessibility problems, including for emerging technologies such as social networking, real-time communications, Web-based television viewing, etc.;" "Determine accessibility considerations for new devices and technologies, such as e-books, mobile communications devices, tablets, automotive interfaces, Web-enabled television, etc.;" A scratch replacement might be: "Collect user requirements for new devices and technologies, and gather implementation examples, features and design patterns for existing devices and technologies." Whereas this item is inspecific to the point of being unhelpful: "Strategize solutions within W3C and via liaisons with external organizations." In the Dependencies section, it isn't clear why some WGs are mentioned and others are not. Is the intention to mention those WGs that have a formal co-ordination point with APA (for example HTML and SVG), or those with which APA intends to liaise on the subject of accessibility in a more general sense? If the latter, what are the criteria for inclusion? In the Liaisons to External Groups section, some of the information may be worth checking. For example, I believe the Accessibility Interoperability Alliance no longer exists (or at least the link returns a 404), and the Linux Foundation Open Accessibility WG appears not to have met since 2011 (or the link leads to an out-dated part of the LF website). |
| Fred Esch | yes | |
| Joseph Scheuhammer | yes | Regarding the management plans for the two groups. The links for the "APA WG Project Management Plan" and the "ARIA WG Project Management Plan" point to the same document: http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/project/ The links appear at the ends of section "2.2 Milestones" for both charters. It's not clear if this means that the management plans for both groups are identical. |
| Cynthia Shelly | yes | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | yes | |
| James Nurthen | yes | The Participation requirements seem to be much greater than I would expect from the charter of this group. I expect my management would have issues with me committing 4-8 hours per week for this group on top of my commitments to the ARIA and WCAG groups. I do not expect the APA work to take this long if I am only interested in the spec review work and as such I would like the participation requirements reduced. If the participation requiements remain as they are I cannot imagine my management will allow me to participate. |
| James Craig | yes | There's a line in here that says: • Determine accessibility considerations for new devices and technologies, such as e-books, mobile communications devices, tablets, automotive interfaces, Web-enabled television, etc.; I rather it be "web accessibility consideration" or "consideration of web content accessibility"... As currently phrased, it seems to imply APA should have some leverage over native accessibility APIs. |
| Tzviya Siegman | yes | |
| John Foliot | yes | With regards to head-count support at this date: 1 participant. This number may change. |
| Lisa Seeman-Horwitz | yes |
2. Draft charter for ARIA Working Group
Please review the draft charter for ARIA. This is the specification development group, and does include more technologies than just ARIA.
Do you support creation of the ARIA Working Group to continue part of the PFWG mission as described in this draft charter document?
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| yes | 20 |
| no |
Details
| Responder | Draft charter for ARIA Working Group | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Janina Sajka | yes | |
| Michael Cooper | yes | |
| Matthew King | yes | |
| Stefan Schnabel | yes | I believe I can contribute more to the evolvement of the standard with my background knowlege about needs of modern and rich web applications, we encounter really many extension candidates in daily development work. |
| Jason White | yes | I expect to be an active participant in this group. |
| Steve Faulkner | yes | |
| Jason Kiss | yes | |
| Bryan Garaventa | yes | Since ARIA implementation is something I work with on a daily basis for development and research, my participation within this WG is more likely to take the lion share of my available time, so it makes more sense for me to dedicate my available resources within this WG at present. |
| Joanmarie Diggs | yes | |
| Matt Garrish | yes | |
| Léonie Watson | yes | |
| Fred Esch | yes | |
| Joseph Scheuhammer | yes | The CR milestone listed in section 2.2 for both "WAI-ARIA 1.1" and "Core Accessibility API Mappings" is Oct 2015, whereas the date is Jul 2015 for "Accessible Name and Description: Computation and API Mappings 1.1". I don't know if the "1.1" designation is meant to coordinate the release of a suite of documents. Either (1) the Accessible Name CR date is too early, or (2) there nothing in WAI-ARIA 1.1 (nor the Core-AAM), that affects nor will affect the name calculation algorithm come Oct. Conceptually, the Accessible Name specification is part of the Core-AAM (and was physically part of core in WAI-ARIA 1.0). It was moved to its own document to support independent links between it and Core-AAM, SVG-AAM, HTML-AAM, etc. I think it's safer to release both the Core-AAM and Accssible Name specifications concurrently. That is, move the CR deadline for Accesssible Name 1.1 out to Oct 2015. |
| Cynthia Shelly | yes | |
| Gregg Vanderheiden | yes | |
| James Nurthen | yes | I would prefer the User Contexts to find a different home but I have previously voiced these objections. |
| James Craig | yes | |
| Tzviya Siegman | yes | |
| John Foliot | yes | With regards to head-count support at this date: 4 potential participants. This number may change. |
| Lisa Seeman-Horwitz | yes | I am saying yes, to make everyones life easier but...I would like to see the coga module deadlines moved forward to be in sync with WCAG coga extension. I would also like to see some of the extensions merged |
3. Participation in the new groups
summary | by responder | by choice
For the groups to succeed, it is important we know they will have sufficient participants. Please indicate which groups you would plan to join if the two charters are approved.
Summary
| Choice | All responders |
|---|---|
| Results | |
| I plan to join the Accessible Platform Architectures (specification review) group. | 11 |
| I plan to join the ARIA (specification development) group. | 19 |
Skip to view by choice.
View by responder
Details
| Responder | Participation in the new groups |
|---|---|
| Janina Sajka |
|
| Michael Cooper |
|
| Matthew King |
|
| Stefan Schnabel |
|
| Jason White |
|
| Steve Faulkner |
|
| Jason Kiss |
|
| Bryan Garaventa |
|
| Joanmarie Diggs |
|
| Matt Garrish |
|
| Léonie Watson |
|
| Fred Esch |
|
| Joseph Scheuhammer |
|
| Cynthia Shelly |
|
| Gregg Vanderheiden | |
| James Nurthen |
|
| James Craig |
|
| Tzviya Siegman |
|
| John Foliot |
|
| Lisa Seeman-Horwitz |
|
View by choice
| Choice | Responders |
|---|---|
| I plan to join the Accessible Platform Architectures (specification review) group. |
|
| I plan to join the ARIA (specification development) group. |
|
More details on responses
- Janina Sajka: last responded on 22, May 2015 at 01:53 (UTC)
- Michael Cooper: last responded on 22, May 2015 at 02:03 (UTC)
- Matthew King: last responded on 22, May 2015 at 12:22 (UTC)
- Stefan Schnabel: last responded on 22, May 2015 at 13:56 (UTC)
- Jason White: last responded on 22, May 2015 at 15:33 (UTC)
- Steve Faulkner: last responded on 23, May 2015 at 14:52 (UTC)
- Jason Kiss: last responded on 25, May 2015 at 03:24 (UTC)
- Bryan Garaventa: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 04:46 (UTC)
- Joanmarie Diggs: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 15:03 (UTC)
- Matt Garrish: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 15:59 (UTC)
- Léonie Watson: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 16:17 (UTC)
- Fred Esch: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 17:02 (UTC)
- Joseph Scheuhammer: last responded on 26, May 2015 at 18:31 (UTC)
- Cynthia Shelly: last responded on 27, May 2015 at 01:05 (UTC)
- Gregg Vanderheiden: last responded on 27, May 2015 at 03:34 (UTC)
- James Nurthen: last responded on 27, May 2015 at 05:08 (UTC)
- James Craig: last responded on 27, May 2015 at 06:55 (UTC)
- Tzviya Siegman: last responded on 27, May 2015 at 14:30 (UTC)
- John Foliot: last responded on 28, May 2015 at 03:28 (UTC)
- Lisa Seeman-Horwitz: last responded on 28, May 2015 at 05:59 (UTC)
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
Report issues
on GitHub project