proposal for controls revised

Hi Folks
Having reviewed johns proposal some more I have the following proposed changes for proposal for controls:
So my first  proposal is to have a risk statement by each definition. It could read
"Note that some of these terms are at risk. Any term will be removed before leaving CR if it does not have user agent support and meet all the WCAG exit criteria ". The current state of each term can be seen at  xxx. We would then maintain a page for each term that has met our exit criteria. I have added user agent support to make it clear that we will not burden authors with meeting this SC for any term were we do not have a  benefit for the users. Note that many terms already have very strong user agent support.
I also think we should chunk the terms as per John Foliot proposal.
 I also agree with John to remove the terms : "right, left, color, send, color and label" for the reasons given in his analysis. 
However I would like to keep "tools" , "help" (button) and "mode" as they are often really essential to the user. However we should mark them as at risk pending techniques and implementations - with a clear link to the "at risk" statement (John wanted them removed)
I would also like to change the term help term for button to "helpFunction" to differentiate a help bot with a  help page
We  change the syntax of of all the terms to get rid of dashes and make them single words with the capitalization showing the second word. This is inline with schema.org. It is not consistent with auto-correct, but that is still a valid technique as it means the same thing.
We have requests in comments to add additional terms. I do not think we have time to review them now but suggest we delay that until after the next WD (but before the CR draft). I can take an action to review each proposed  term for implementability and redundancy etc and put them in a table for review  (I will aim for a week after we finish with the next WD.)
I have a lot of the relevant information and draft responses in a google doc.

 
If this is acceptable then I suggest john and I (and anyone else who wants)  can redraft the definitions as per the above. 



BTW putting them in the last draft have prompted sites to reach out to me for implementation advice.  So we are already seeing some moment


All the best


Lisa










All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter