Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): Request re Reporting Spec

+1

By way of response to Jason's comments:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-apa-admin/2022May/0015.html

I note that the central point of this CfC is to explore applications of
the Web Performance WG's Reporting Specification framework to accessibility use cases, and
not so much the specific wording of our draft outreach message.

As more of us look at this spec, we enhance our understanding and our
ability to articulate our needs. In this context Jason's comments make
sense to me, though I expect we would continue to refine our outreach
message.

I would further note thatour a11y use cases have also only expanded
since this CfC was first posted.

Janina

Janina Sajka writes:
> Colleagues:
> 
> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Accessible Platform
> Architectures (APA) Working Group testing whether we have group
> consensus to approach the Web Performance Working Group[1] to explore
> whether their Reporting API technology might be usefully harnessed for
> accessibility purposes. The proposed outreach message follows:
> 
> ***beginning of suggested Message***
> 
> Colleagues:
> 
> The Accessible Platform Architectures (APA) Working Group has again reviewed your specification:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/TR/reporting/
> 
> We have no issues from the perspective of our horizontal review responsibility. That is not why we're writing you at this time.
> 
> We have realized that there may be multiple ways to use your specification in support of conformance to various accessibility standards specifications. Would you be amenable to exploring an Accessibility endpoint addition to your specification with us?
> 
> We can conceive of many ways to use such a mechanism. For example, the accessibility endpoint could be used by assistive technology (AT), user agents, browser extensions/plugins, and automated web scanning tools to report on specific failures to meet WCAG success criteria, especially where today's dynamic content is invisible to current
> standard auditing processes. This may align with or build on existing work from Accessibility Conformance Testing (ACT). Perhaps it could also be used to capture accessibility feedback or problem reports from visitors to the site.
> 
> These are likely best explained in a teleconference setting by way of an initial check to ensure our understanding and expectations match.
> 
> If you agree our proposal has merit, we would look for ways to specify the initial endpoint and any additional aspects as may be relevant.
> 
> What do you think? Is this a reasonable application of your technology? Might we schedule an hour sometime soon to explore the possibilities with you and discuss next steps if moving forward appears reasonable?
> 
> Thanking you in advance for your consideration of our request,
> 
> Janina Sajka & Matthew Atkinson
> APA Co-Chairs
> 
> ***Action to Take***
> 
> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as statements of
> support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, though
> messages of support are certainly welcome.
> 
> If you object to this proposed action, or have comments concerning this
> proposal, please respond by replying on list to this message no later
> than 23:59 (Midnight) Boston Time, Wednesday 1 June.
> 
> NOTE: This Call for Consensus is being conducted in accordance with the
> APA Decision Policy published at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/decision-policy
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/webperf
> 
> -- 
> 
> Janina Sajka
> 
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:	http://a11y.org
> 
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
> 

-- 

Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures	http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2022 14:51:51 UTC