W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > June 2017

RE: should we say "critical controls" or just "controls".

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 12:54:21 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
CC: "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0901MB0919D10A20BBA6CB52E45F3EB9DD0@DB6PR0901MB0919.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Sorry, I may have sent a draft version on this before, I was trying new email client.



I wonder if an alternative approach is to specify what content is, rather than how important it is? Then it’s upto the client to define importance for different things, not the site (or testers).



Trying to come at this from the techniques upwards, we would want things like:

  1.  Use regions to identify the purpose of areas of the page (with both ARIA regions and the extensions from [1]
  2.  Use ‘coga-action’ to provide context for buttons when the purpose of the button matches the spec [2].
  3.  Use ‘coga-destination’ to provide context for links when the purpose of the link matches the spec [3].
  4.  Use ‘coga-field’ to provide context for text inputs when the purpose of the field matches the spec [4].



 NB: coga-context doesn’t seem to have pre-defined options, not sure where to go with that one.



The first of those (regions) would be the basis for hiding areas of the page, and the 2nd – 4th would be for hiding particular controls or adding icons.



All of these are attributes rather than elements, so closer to 4.1.2 than 1.3.1, but these are not aimed at “Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components” so we need a new SC.



How about something like:

“1.3.x Contextual information: Where a defined vocabulary is available, contextual information can be programmatically determined for sections and controls.”



(Sections and controls already have definitions, not sure if “defined vocab” is a reasonable way to refer to another spec?)



I still think there is a huge problem with being able to add icons into a layout automatically, but this at least avoids the ‘essential/core’ problem, and means that if the associated spec isn’t ready, a page doesn’t need to conform to it.



Cheers,



-Alastair





1] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#potential-parts-of-a-page


2] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#desc-coga-action


3] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#desc-coga-destination


4] https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#desc-coga-field




From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]

At that point, I honestly have to ask, are we really approaching this the right way? I am not convinced we are.


Received on Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 June 2017 12:55:02 UTC