Re: Possibility of moving Personalization Semantics out of ARIA and into APA

Hi Joanie,

I couldn't agree more. I have had the concerns you've mentioned about
Personalisation and the ARIA WG for some time now, specifically because
ARIA is intended for the AAPI's, and not for the GUI.

As a member of the APA WG, the ARIA WG (I know, I've been missing in action
for a while), and as I embark on a personal renewed focus around
Personalisation and the attendant Task Force, I wholeheartedly agree and
support this move.

JF

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote:

> Hi Personalization Semantics Task Force members.
>
> As you may be aware, the charters of the ARIA and APA Working Groups are
> each about to expire. As part of the re-chartering process, both Working
> Groups need to identify their proposed deliverables. Personalization
> Semantics is currently listed as a deliverable of the ARIA Working
> Group, and we believe it would be a better fit for everyone as an APA
> deliverable.
>
> First and foremost are the technical aspects of implementation. In
> particular:
>
> 1. ARIA does not control what content will be loaded.
> 2. ARIA does not impact how loaded content will be displayed.
> 3. ARIA information is conveyed via accessibility APIs specific to
>    individual platforms through mappings specs ("AAMs").
>
> In other words, ARIA does not impact the experience of sighted users.
> This is by design. And it seems to be the opposite of what is described
> in the Personalization Semantics Explainer [1]. For instance, in section
> 1.1 ("Why We Need Personalization"), it says the following:
>
>   Some users need extra support. This can include:
>   * Symbols and graphics that they are familiar with
>   * Tooltips
>   * Language they understand
>   * Less features
>   * Separating advertisements, so they do not confuse them with native
>     content
>   * Keyboard short cuts
>
> In order to address those needs, the experience of sighted users is
> necessarily impacted: Personalization by definition is to make
> determinations regarding what gets included on screen, what gets
> excluded, and how rendered content should appear. ARIA does not do that.
>
> Furthermore, achieving the Personalization needs listed above does not
> require the behind-the-scenes information consumed by platform-specific
> assistive technologies. You should be able to achieve Personalization
> Semantics support much more quickly and easily than ARIA -- and in a way
> that works in all operating systems -- via browser extensions. Indeed
> there is already at least one proof of concept demonstrating this.
>
> It also seems that using ARIA-style states and properties is only one
> proposed method of implementing the desired outcome. The Personalization
> explainer lists HTML microdata and RDF/A as other potential
> implementation techniques. Having this specification within the ARIA
> working group seems to unnecessarily require an ARIA-style
> implementation which may not be the best outcome for the specification.
>
> That said, Personalization Semantics is an essential module and a key
> part of WAI and needs a home. If that home is not within the ARIA
> Working Group, where should it be? We do think Personalization Semantics
> can benefit from the support of being housed within an existing WAI
> Working Group so that those working on achieving it can focus on doing
> so. That, combined with the fact that APA is considering including
> normative deliverables in its upcoming charter, makes us think that APA
> would be a much better fit for continuing this work.
>
> Please let us know your thoughts on this matter. Thanks!
> --Joanie and James
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-1.0/
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion