Re: working on the definitions for support personliazion

> AC: Yes, but to overcome (mostly John’s) objection the items (names) need
to be in a normative part of WCAG, e.g. the definition.

Erm... I don't recall specifically saying that. In fact, I've argued that
for *today* (aka 2.1), providing >> Something/Anything << to address the
user-need is better than nothing. (Thus a "prose" or localized string that
provides additional assistance to the end user, applied to key page
controls/inputs, is better than saying nothing at all.)

It is far from perfect, as it does not address the needs of *all*
cognitively-impacted users, but it does help some of those users, and it
helps us underscore the importance of the need. By emerging as an AA SC in
2.1 - and, as we build out Success Techniques - it allows us to bring
forward COGA Semantics
<https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/> (the spec), in very
much the same way that we established conditions in WCAG 2.0 that did not
*mandate* the use of ARIA, but made using ARIA the "duh, no kidding"
solution as support for ARIA hardened and gained more traction.

Lisa / COGA TF came forward with a list of 75 (now apparently whittled down
to 35 (?) - apologies as I am off-site this week) of key controls and
inputs that would be applicable in this SC.

I do however agree that posting the list of those key controls/inputs MUST
be included in the SC as a normative part of the SC, so that we have a
'list' to measure success/failure against.

JF

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:09 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell
>
> The problem is that the HTML5 list are tokens for attributes, not human
> readable names…
>
>
>
> *[Jason] *
>
> *All the proposal states is that the name can be programmatically
> determined, so a browser extension or other assistive technology can simply
> maintain an HTML5 token to localized name hash table for this purpose, and
> look up the name from the token.*
>
>
>
> AC: Yes, but to overcome (mostly John’s) objection the items (names) need
> to be in a normative part of WCAG, e.g. the definition.
>
>
>
> Do you think we can use token/name pairs? E.g.
>
> Full name (‘name’), Prefix or title (‘honorific-prefix’), Etc.
>
>
>
> And allow either value to be used?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion