Re: Personalisation semantics - naming

Alistair, 

These are substantive change to the specification and should be taken up with the coga task force given that this is a First Public Working Draft. The prefix has been discussed already. There are strong opinions on both sides as to whether to use yoga- or aria-

I have cc’d the task force chairs on this. FPWDs are definitely subject to change in future releases.

Best,
Rich 


Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I’m commenting on the spec at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/ <https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/>
>  
> I have a few comments, but the main one is around the name of the attributes, the “coga-“ approach.
>  
> It appears many of these attributes would be useful to others (with keyboard short cuts for example), can we use one attribute type for all things accessibility?
> 
> If "aria-" were used instead of “coga-“ then ARIA is no-longer just a screen-reader thing (hooray!). If everything is aria- or role=, then developers won't be dividing up audiences in their mind, they are just applying general accessibility meta-data.
> 
> The less we can sub-divide the accessibility audiences, and the clearer the solutions are, the better traction it will get.
>  
> Working that through for the various attributes:
> 
> -          How about “aria-context” instead of “coga-action”?
> -          aria-destination instead of coga-destination.
> -          coga-field appears to cross over a lot with HTML5 input types, can it align with those?
> -          aria-input instead of coga-field.
> -          coga-context, seems easily confused by name, could it be aria-profile instead?
> -          aria-icon instead of coga-concept.
> -          coga-numberfree seems like it could be more generalizable, it is akin to the abbr element. How about aria-explained?
> -          Could coga-literal also go under aria-explained?
> -          coga-feedback feels very similar to aria-live in concept, but I can see the different audience requirement. 
> How about aria-feedback?
> 
> That’s just some ideas, but I also think it would help to include the attributes other audiences have (e.g. low vision, mobility), and come up with a more generalised categorisation.
>  
> I’m sure the AG working group’s low vision task force would be able to help with that (which I’m on), are there other groups that should be involved consulted?
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> -Alastair
>  
> -- 
>  
> www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc