- From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 16:16:33 -0400
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: "public-aria@w3.org" <public-aria@w3.org>, Lisa Seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
- Message-Id: <CA0D9EE8-07C7-461C-8BF2-BDEB9095AC05@gmail.com>
Alistair, These are substantive change to the specification and should be taken up with the coga task force given that this is a First Public Working Draft. The prefix has been discussed already. There are strong opinions on both sides as to whether to use yoga- or aria- I have cc’d the task force chairs on this. FPWDs are definitely subject to change in future releases. Best, Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger > On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:24 AM, 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
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 20:17:11 UTC