diff from current to proposed: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2F11%2Faria-charter&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fraw.githack.com%2Fw3c%2Faria%2Fcharter-2021%2Fcharter.html

No comment/request from i18n.

Would https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/ fit into this charter since we'd like to close the Web Platform WG finally? cc @stevefaulkner @DavidMacDonald

As a naive reader, ARIA's scope and work products are not clear, and I would love to see some rewrites in the introduction and/or scope. Here are some questions that may help:

"...to address needs reported by authors...": authors of what? Who are we serving here, and who's input are we listening to?

"...to achieve parity with native host languages...": what is a native host language? Is there a way to say this in plainer language? (This term is used at least three times.)

"For each ARIA specification developed by this Working Group, create a corresponding Accessibility API Mappings specification ..." It seems odd that all specifications developed by the "ARIA WG" are somehow not "ARIA specifications". Is the term ARIA overloaded here? Again, is there a way to unpack this for the naive reader? (e.g. The list of deliverables doesn't seem pairwise matched, as I might expect from the current Scope - I see "Core Accessibility API mappings" with no "Core Accessibility API" "ARIA specification", "Digital Publishing Accessibility API Mappings" with no "Digital Publishing Accessibility API" "ARIA specification".)

How can you write this for a technically sophisticated reader who knows nothing about a11y?

Nit: the Digital Publishing Accessibility API Mappings link is wrong.

I see that most, if not all, if the current ARIA specs do not include the requisite Security and Privacy analyses and write ups. I'm glad to see that the proposed charter requires those.

Should SVG-AAM be added to this charter?

@plehegar

Would https://www.w3.org/TR/using-aria/ fit into this charter since we'd like to close the Web Platform WG finally?

Using ARIA, despite its name, was not produced by the ARIA WG. That document is one source of guidance for ARIA in HTML, also the name of a TR doc, also not produced by the ARIA WG. The HTML-specific aspects of this guidance is beyond the scope of the ARIA WG, and the rest of the guidance is covered in the WAI-ARIA Authoring Practices which receives a lot of investment in the ARIA WG. I suggest, if the Web Platform WG does not want to maintain that document, it be retired, possibly with a reference to the Practices.

@samuelweiler

As a naive reader, ARIA's scope and work products are not clear, and I would love to see some rewrites in the introduction and/or scope. Here are some questions that may help:

"...to address needs reported by authors...": authors of what? Who are we serving here, and who's input are we listening to?

I added "of accessible content" to that sentence. It is people making Web content using emerging design patterns that they are not able to make fully accessible, who identify ARIA features that may be needed.

"...to achieve parity with native host languages...": what is a native host language? Is there a way to say this in plainer language? (This term is used at least three times.)

I added after the first instance (excluding mission at the top) "(markup languages such as HTML or SVG that can use ARIA attributes to provide additional accessibility information)".

"For each ARIA specification developed by this Working Group, create a corresponding Accessibility API Mappings specification ..." It seems odd that all specifications developed by the "ARIA WG" are somehow not "ARIA specifications". Is the term ARIA overloaded here?

I don't think all specifications developed by a group need to be named for the group. Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group is the most clear description of what the group does.

Again, is there a way to unpack this for the naive reader? (e.g. The list of deliverables doesn't seem pairwise matched, as I might expect from the current Scope - I see "Core Accessibility API mappings" with no "Core Accessibility API" "ARIA specification", "Digital Publishing Accessibility API Mappings" with no "Digital Publishing Accessibility API" "ARIA specification".)

The answer to this is not concise enough for a charter, and I think is not needed detail. Because we develop on varying timelines, not all specifications are included in this charter. However, I did add DPub ARIA, accompanying DPub-AAM, since the group has resumed work on that recently.

How can you write this for a technically sophisticated reader who knows nothing about a11y?

In the structure of a charter, I don't think we can.

Nit: the Digital Publishing Accessibility API Mappings link is wrong.

Fixed.

ReSpec flagged that the Aria specs were using the old W3C Document license. It would be great if we could move Aria WG to use more permissive W3C-software-doc license instead.

@michael-n-cooper

re "Using ARIA", ok.

Can we switch the Group to the more permissive licence?

ARIA participants are checking with their organizations to see if they can support a license change.

Note that this is an instance of the tail wagging the dog, i.e., a change being proposed for tool convenience rather than what is correct for the spec. Tools should meet the needs of specs, and the W3C Document License is still valid (and recommended for its purpose) as far as I know, so tools should support it.

Google prefers the Software and Document license

No, that’s not true at all @michael-n-cooper. It’s because it’s a better license for everyone and it makes a huge difference to implementers (e.g., being able to copy/paste spec text into C++ code).

Apple also prefers the Software and Document license.

Mozilla also prefers the W3C Software and Document license for working group charters, and we have been consistently requesting this license whenever charters are updated.

(Originally published at: https://tantek.com/2021/280/t1/)

Sent CFC to group to change license in charter https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2021Oct/0001.html

The ARIA WG agreed to the license change and the charter is updated.

Excellent! Thanks for the update and making that happen 🙏