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