annevk
commented
1 month ago That seems like a reasonable idea. Although ideally we don't add any such features.
cc @cookiecrook @whatwg/a11y
Open npdoty opened 1 month ago
annevk
commented
1 month ago That seems like a reasonable idea. Although ideally we don't add any such features.
cc @cookiecrook @whatwg/a11y
patrickhlauke
commented
1 month ago it's an interesting idea, though i'd love to hear/see an example of that (have vague memories of the concerns about this in the early days of AOM)
npdoty
commented
1 month ago Reviews of the ARIA specs have touched on some of the different mechanisms that might currently be used to detect use of assistive technology. I'm not an expert here, but it seems like not a short list: https://github.com/w3c/aria/issues/1371#issuecomment-779143941
npdoty
commented
1 month ago The TAG also has a summary of some of the features for detectability, and some context on the use of an icon to mark where features can enable detectability: https://github.com/w3ctag/design-principles/issues/293
What is the issue with the Infra Standard?
While conducting privacy reviews, we have realized that it would also be helpful if specifications marked where a feature might expose accessibility tools. This could be useful for privacy reviews, and also for implementers who may wish to provide particular protections to users of accessibility tools.
Similar to fingerprint/tracking-vector icon, it might be useful to develop an appropriate icon and tooling to enable working groups to add this mark to specifications.
cc @sandandsnow @pes10k w3c/strategy/issues/459