Re: Attribution and Clarification(s)

The current drafts on TR went though a CFC and consensus process. 

Please open an issue (if you have not yet done so) in the personlization task force github. Or just weight until we reevaluate the implementation sections which , as you know, is on our schedule and todo list for the drafts.

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:51:06 +0300 John Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com> wrote ---- 

Hi Janina,


Thanks for that pointer. I note that those minutes are from 2015. 


Included in those minutes is the following exchange:

MC: WRT proliferation, we do not have to assume aria is the technology used to meet the requirements.
... John F said that a lot of this soulds like CSS to him.

<JF> +1 to Michael's point

Janina: Similar concern as Michael.
Little early to talk about specific solutions.
People need to get familiar with the problem space
What we really want people to understand the value of making these kind of changes.
This is a whole new space and we don't have a lot of background and we need time.
Leave the solution out and first map out the use cases, needs, ... do not start with solution and open that up for argument before we understand the space.

LS: I agree w/Michael, we do not have to assume solution is aria and not, say html5.


​I concur with your (and Lisa's) statement(s) there that we should not start with a solution (and that other mechanisms, such as HTML5 or CSS, may also be appropriate), yet the code examples being provided in the current draft(s) feel very much like that is exactly what we are doing​: aria-like attributes with simply a new prefix.

Those comments also come from a time when we were discussing coga-* attributes (which have now been overcome by aui-* attribute proposals), and so I was hoping to see a more current instance of the TF agreeing to "leave them in" in the current Modules (which weren't even in existence in 2015...)


Thanks.


JF





On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
John:
 
 Responding to just one item in this email ...
 
 John Foliot writes:
 > >From today's APA Call, the following was recorded in the minutes:
 > 
 > Michael: John is objecting to these examples. Not offering to clean them
 > up. We thought the examples are better than nothing for now.
 > 
 > 
 > ​Can​ I please know who the "we" is here? Was this group consensus decision
 > recorded anywhere? Is there a public or private URI or previous meeting
 > minutes I should review?
 > 
 
 This understanding is based on the discussion of the examples in recent
 Personalization TF teleconferences, particularly Monday 30 April:
 
 http://www.w3.org/2015/10/27-aria-minutes.html#item0://www.w3.org/2018/04/30-personalization-minutes.html
 
 
 hth
 
 Janina
 
 -- 
 
 Janina Sajka
 
 Linux Foundation Fellow
 Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:       http://a11y.org
 
 The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
 Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures        http://www.w3.org/wai/apa
 
 




-- 
John Foliot


Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

john.foliot@deque.com



Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion