Thank you for a helpful meeting during TPAC. In this followup I'm
setting aside procedural questions we raised during our meeting and
focussing instead on our next steps for our prospective WAI-Adapt
Candidate Recommendation draft.
My primary take-away was that we had too many, seemingly unrelated
attributes in the CR draft we'd put forward. I also recall hearing that
the AAC symbols attribute was the most "architecturally sound" of all
our proposed attributes.
What We Have Done Since
1.) We have dropped all attributes from our proposed CR except
symbol support. The current draft we hope to propose before the December
moratoriumis here:
2.) Because we need normative reference to a symbols registry for
AAC symbols support, we are about to publish a FPWD of "WAI-Adapt
Registry for AAC Symbols:"
NOTE: We have worked with Blissymbolics Communication International
(BCI) on this FPWD, because our approach brings their concept index to
web content.
3.) We continue to update our Explainer. Most specifically, all
references to advertising as a use case are now removed from the
Explainer. Instead, we are developing other use cases in cooperation
with the W3C Web for Children Community Group (among others):
As we'd like to avoid returning to any kind of miscommunication with the
TAG, I am providing our plans in advance of proposing document
transitions. If you'd like any particular action before we move to CR
with AAC symbols, and to FPWD with a Registry for AAC symbols, please
advise.
Email at: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Group/group-apa-chairs/2022Nov/0066.html
plain text as below:
Dear Rossen, Philippe, All:
Thank you for a helpful meeting during TPAC. In this followup I'm setting aside procedural questions we raised during our meeting and focussing instead on our next steps for our prospective WAI-Adapt Candidate Recommendation draft.
FYI, or TPAC minutes are here:
https://www.w3.org/2022/09/13-apa-minutes.html#t01
My primary take-away was that we had too many, seemingly unrelated attributes in the CR draft we'd put forward. I also recall hearing that the AAC symbols attribute was the most "architecturally sound" of all our proposed attributes.
What We Have Done Since
1.) We have dropped all attributes from our proposed CR except symbol support. The current draft we hope to propose before the December moratoriumis here:
https://w3c.github.io/adapt/symbols/
NOTE: By request of WHATWG (with whom we also met during TPAC: https://www.w3.org/2022/09/13-apa-minutes.html#t03), this CR draft is using the Adapt- prefix. See also this github issue:
https://github.com/w3c/adapt/issues/222
2.) Because we need normative reference to a symbols registry for AAC symbols support, we are about to publish a FPWD of "WAI-Adapt Registry for AAC Symbols:"
https://w3c.github.io/aac-registry/
NOTE: We have worked with Blissymbolics Communication International (BCI) on this FPWD, because our approach brings their concept index to web content.
3.) We continue to update our Explainer. Most specifically, all references to advertising as a use case are now removed from the Explainer. Instead, we are developing other use cases in cooperation with the W3C Web for Children Community Group (among others):
https://www.w3.org/community/accessibility4children/
As we'd like to avoid returning to any kind of miscommunication with the TAG, I am providing our plans in advance of proposing document transitions. If you'd like any particular action before we move to CR with AAC symbols, and to FPWD with a Registry for AAC symbols, please advise.
Thanking you for your help,
Janina