Can we have a straw poll - are we in the right direction - was RE: Moving personlization forward - wording suggestion

HiWith the current wording, we are asking for  well-scoped semantics OR symbols in the main version or personalized version

I am struggling to understand why have an OR option does not solve the issues. I think it addresses the concerns of  out of scope cases and drawbacks for either cases 


 I would really like a poll on whether we are in the right direction now. If not we should make a stronger case for personalization but at AAA


quick reminder:
the current wording on the list is
For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:
 -a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
-contextual information is available for regions, common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls is programmatically determined.
 We would then specify and scope  in the definitions exactly what is included in common form elements, common navigation elements, and common interactive controls  and make sure we have good supporting techniques for each one. I see the definition of common elements listing some of the values of coga-action, coga-field and coga-destination, so it should be very well defined what you need to include.



All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 23:41:29 +0300  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 11:34 AM
 
 
 
 
  I think you will get more push-back from requiring an on-page solution, and in comparison pushing for a *well scoped* set of semantics would be easier and better.
 [Jason] I agree, with the emphasis decidedly on “well scoped”, “precisely defined”, “broadly applicable across the Web” and “efficacious when supported by assistive technology”. If such a solution were in place (and I would argue it isn’t yet), it would be much easier to argue for an extension of the markup and metadata requirements of WCAG.
 As I’ve argued earlier in this discussion, I think the technology, the implementation, and the evidence of efficacy need to precede the WCAG integration.
 
 
 
 
  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
 Thank you for your compliance.