Re: [w3c/personalization-semantics] Does personalization semantics work as an ARIA module? (#54)

Thanks Joanie,

I believe that for personalization to really gain traction, we'll need to
make it as simple and light-weight as possible for content authors to
implement.

I think that all of the use-case requirements associated to personalization
can in fact be distilled down to "*What is this here for? What is the
intent?*", and as such, I suspect at this time it could all be handled with
a single attribute: the key of course is what *values* would be associated
to the attribute (fixed list), and can all of the emergent requirements
from COGA/Personalization be addressed that way?

Given that the current direction is to publish a vocabulary of terms and
definitions
<https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html>, I
believe we can still attach those values to the targeted element with a
single attribute. For example:

< button intent="action-undo">

(alternatively: <button intent="action.undo">? <button intent="action_undo">?
...specific notation TBD, but a notation that supports a compound thought
is what would be required)

< a href="" intent="destination-sitemap">

< input type="tel" intent="field-tel">, <input type="text"
intent="field-postalcode">

< div intent="importance-critical">, < aside intent="importance-low">

< a href="video.mp4" intent="distraction-autoStarting">See my video here</a
>

(ya, this seems weak...)

(I have not provided an example for the proposed 'symbol', as by the draft
specification alone this doesn't make any sense to me - it is unclear what
is being attempted here)


At this time, this is all "off-the-top-of-my-head" thinking (without any
deep research), but I hope to introduce this proposal to the Task Force, as
well as attempt to chat-it-up next week at CSUN.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:06 PM, joanmarie <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> The other problem with using role is that role maps to something on
> platform accessibility APIs. Using it for other purposes raises two
> concerns in my mind:
>
>    1. Risk of breaking accessibility for assistive technology users.
>    2. We'll have to add all the new "roles" to an AAM which seems rather
>    pointless since those new "roles" aren't even intended for ATs and thus
>    don't need mappings; the mappings would just be to try to prevent the
>    previous item.
>
> I dig @johnfoliot <https://github.com/johnfoliot>'s idea of a new
> property like intent. Neat suggestion!!
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/54#issuecomment-373120610>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-c4oF2go_F7YGPJEEhL8F-OTe_Hn7ks5teVwvgaJpZM4Sftir>
> .
>



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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion