Re: Personalisation semantics - naming

How about:

pers-, pref-, or user-

This way it is not limited to coga.

Rich

Rich Schwerdtfeger




> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:36 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:
> 
> I like these changes. We did start with the aria prefex but we got kickback becuse the aria prefex could  have bloat and  devlopers will be put off.
> 
> can you think of another prefex? such as ariap for aria persolization 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:24:08 +0300 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
> 
> 
>