Horizontal Review: Accessibility self test

[wip-abramson]

This is an Accessibility self assessment of the DID Resolution 1.0 specification against the APA checklist to see what is relevant for this group.

The main sections of the survey are below. I checked those items that, in my view, _are not relevant for DID Resolution (therefore, as far as the check is concerned, we are o.k.). In case of doubt I have either added a comment to explain why I do not believe it is of any relevance for us, or I also listed the specific sub-items. Again, I checked those that I think we are fine with (mostly because they are not relevant).

• If technology allows visual rendering of content

• If technology provides author control over color

• If technology provides features to accept user input

• If technology provides user interaction features

• If technology defines document semantics

• If technology provides time-based visual media (see also the Media Accessibility Checklist)

• If technology provides audio

• If technology allows time limits

• If technology allows text content

• If technology creates objects that don't have an inherent text representation

  • There is a mechanism to create short text alternatives that label the object.
  • There is a mechanism to create extended text alternatives for fallback content.
  • Text alternatives can be semantically "rich" e.g., with page structure, text style, hyperlinks, etc.

  I think these questions are not relevant for our case; DID documents are inherently managed and understood by machines and not by humans. DID Resolution defines an abstract function for the resolution of DIDs to DID Document by machines. (The explanatory text in the test refer to things like form controls, labels, etc.)

• If technology provides content fallback mechanisms, whether text or other formats

• If technology provides visual graphics

• If technology provides internationalization support

• If technology defines accessible alternative features

• If technology provides content directly for end-users

• If technology defines an API

  • If the API can be used for structured content, it provides features to represent all aspects of the content including hidden accessibility features.
  • If the API relies on user agents to generate a user interface, the specification provides guidance about accessibility requirements needed to enable full interaction with the API.

• If technology defines a transmission protocol

  • Use of the does not cause any aspect of the content, including metadata which could contain important accessibility information, to be removed
  • It is possible to use third-party accessibility enhancement services while using the protocol.

[w3cbot]

This was discussed during the #did meeting on 15 May 2025.

View the transcript

Horizontal Review

<Wip> w3c/did-resolution#145

wip: As you know this is a high priority for us.... I have also submitted a few issues to the did resolution repo....

<Wip> w3c/did-resolution#144

wip: any updates or things we want to discuss about this?

<manu> w3c/did#885

manu: I did start with the horizontal review on 855.... TAG is already done with their part....

manu: they reviewed and there was some questions and then they specified they are satisfied....

manu: unfortunately the PING and Security review docs I am not able to retrieve from the last time....

manu: lesson learned is that it is to best put these docs in an issue tracker so we don't loose them....

manu: I used some AI to generate the explainer....

manu: the TAG noted that the explainer was AI generated.... they mainly looked on things that had changed....

manu: in the end they gave their ok....

manu: open question as to why the TAG required all this explainer....

manu: we can take a similar approach for the did resolution spec... probably using an LLM should be fine for the explainer....

wip: markus any thoughts on the horizontal review?

markus_sabadello: I haven't looked at it yet, but it sounds like a good idea... wondering when the right time is considering we still have plenty of open issues?

manu: it is probably ok to create it now....

wip: ok...

---