Accessibility Self-Review of Controller Documents v1.0

[msporny]

The following issue contains the VCWG's Accessibility Self-Review of Controller Documents v1.0.

The specification is a way of expressing identifiers and cryptographic material that is not exposed to the general public and thus does not contain text, visuals, audio, or haptic data that will be experienced directly by a human being. The one exception for this is possibly software developers, who might encounter error messages when using software libraries that implement the specification above. The errors have specific codes, which are accessible (human readable) and internationalizable, but whose accessibility and internationalization characteristics are up to each implementer.

We believe that this specification, in general, does not create accessibility concerns, especially since the contents of the specification has been reviewed and approved by a11y before (DID Core and VC Data Integrity).

The following self-review question categories were analyzed and resulted in the following answers:

• The technology DO NOT allow for visual rendering of content
• The technology DO NOT provide author control over color
• The technologies DO NOT provide features to accept user input
• The technologies DO NOT provide user interaction features
• The technologies DO NOT define document semantics
• The technologies DO NOT provide time-based visual media
• The technologies DO NOT provide audio
• The technologies DO NOT allow time limits
• The technologies DO NOT allow text content
• The technologies DO NOT create objects that don't have an inherent text representation
• The technologies DO NOT provide content fallback mechanisms, whether text or other formats
• The technologies DO NOT provide visual graphics
• The technologies DO provide internationalization support
  • Accessibility features can be internationalized to the same degree as other features
    • Specifically, times are expressed using XML Schema 1.1 where the date can be localized and made accessible given the nature of XML Schema 1.1 date time values.
• The technologies DO NOT define accessible alternative features
• The technologies DO NOT provide content directly for end-users
• The technologies DO NOT define an API
• The technologies DO NOT define a transmission protocol

[selfissued]

What is the workflow that this self-review is subject to?

[msporny]

What is the workflow that this self-review is subject to?

It is a review that someone in the WG performs and the WG reviews and approves (and can modify over time). The Privacy and Security groups then take it as input to determine if they agree with the self review (as they perform a critical review of their own).

You can read more about the process here:

https://www.w3.org/Guide/documentreview/#how_to_get_horizontal_review

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-08-14

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

4.4. Accessibility Self-Review of Controller Documents v1.0 (issue controller-document#23)

See github issue controller-document#23.

Brent Zundel: I did ping Horizontal Review folks for a review. If we reach out for review and don't get review, what is the guidance there?

Ivan Herman: You can curse, I can give you some ideas there :P.
… When we request CR transition, we have to say their reviews timed out.

Gabe Cohen: 🤣.

Ivan Herman: All the reviews that we got on DI are valid here because we did not do any new technical development here, this was just an editorial move from one place to another, plus timeouts will probably be fine, but I'm not the one who decides that.

Brent Zundel: a11y is pending, i18n is done, so I think we can close 24.

Ivan Herman: For this WG, the question will be security/privacy -- not sure where we are with security in general, but that's a more general question for TPAC.

Manu Sporny: Just to speak to that security thing. Where we are -- Simone is very aware of our WG's work and the need for a security review and he's collected a bunch of people together to do those sorts of reviews but they aren't complete. We need to be very clear to him that we need a formal review.
… And at this point, no fault of Simone, he just got started and got a lot of work, but we need the feedback. But we're going to CR2 and we don't want changes because of the security review.
… We need to let him know that we're going to be asking him for a status at TPAC.

Ivan Herman: I don't know where we are with the schedule for W3C TPAC meetings, it might be a good idea to (now) try to get ourselves a slot w/ Simone.

Brent Zundel: We have one.

Ivan Herman: It would be nice to get something w/ him.

Brent Zundel: We have a joint meeting w/ the Security folks.

Ivan Herman: We shouldn't schedule for a 2nd CR before TPAC.

Brent Zundel: That is the plan, we are not going to CR2 before TPAC.