search

w3c / apa

APA WG deliverables have been moved to individual repositories
Other
47 stars 38 forks source link

Review MathML Core #344

Open matatk opened 6 months ago

matatk commented 6 months ago

Due: 2024-04-01

Spec review request: https://github.com/w3c/a11y-request/issues/73 - the opening comment on that thread links to both the version of the spec under review, and to the group's responses to the FAST (accessibility) checklist.

Note this links to the group's results for the accessibility checklist, which are at:

Historical APA review info: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/MathML_Core

APA teleconf minutes: https://www.w3.org/2024/03/06-apa-minutes#t09

newtonsgroove commented 6 months ago

Math ML Review

Date conducted: 3/21/2024

Site: https://www.w3.org/TR/mathml-core/

Task: review MathMLspec for any concerts regarding accessibility . Share concerns with apa working group

Document does not mention a base level of compliance for accessibility. I’m recommending that some statement be included in an Accessibility Section. My recommendation would also be that the statement be not too granular - in that way updates to the document may still fit cited use cases and may not need an update to the accessibility statement (unless desired). Here are several possible variations for discussion.

Simple: All instances of MathML should be implemented in compliance with all WCAG success criteria (at the compliance level selected by the [business])

More Robust::All instances of MathML should be implemented in compliance with all WCAG guidelines (at the compliance level selected by the [business]).These may includes but are not limited to the following:

1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A): 1.3.1 Information and relationships (Level A) 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence (Level A) 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (Level A) 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A) 2.1.2 Keyboard trap (Level A) 4.1.1 Parsing (Level A) 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A)

Even More Robust::All instances of MathML should be implemented in compliance with all WCAG success criteria (at the compliance level selected by the [business]). Validation of compliance should be checked at the presentation markup, CSS and/or inline styling, and rendered content displayed within the user agent.r at These may includes but are not limited to the following:

1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A): 1.3.1 Information and relationships (Level A) 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence (Level A) 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (Level A) 2.1.1 Keyboard (Level A) 2.1.2 Keyboard trap (Level A) 4.1.1 Parsing (Level A) 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (Level A)

Alternatively, but not recommended, accessibility information could be included at each point in the General Layout Schemata. At 3.3.1 Group Sub-Expressions , for example, it may be meaningful to discuss the reading order of content and the expectation for the interaction of the content with assistive technology. This process, however, would be the most leborious and have potential for a lot of unintended omissions of applicable success criteria.