Attribution and Clarification(s)

>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?

​
Michael: Objection is not to the deliverable. The chair could determine
that this objection is not relevant.
​

​With all due respect, the focus of my objection *IS* the deliverable(s).
>From my CfC response:

​"​
Deque supports the ongoing work of the APA WG, as well as moving the
Personalization Task Force from the ARIA WG to the APA WG. *Our concern is
with the Rec Track Modules defined in the Charter deliverables.*
*​*"*​*

​


​Continuing:​

Janina: John objects to having attribute prefixes in examples. But in the
past 24 hours we have put a disclaimer in.


​I note the presence of this new disclaimer​ on the Editor's Draft(s) of
the Content Module, The Help and Support Module, but NOT the Tools Module
(May 16 version)
<https://rawgit.com/AreaOfAKite/personalization-semantics/thad-tools/tools/index.html>,
which also states:

​
Introduction

This section is non-normative.
This document lists examples of the Personalization Tools *attributes.*



Additionally, the Personalization Semantics Explainer
<https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/#vocabulary-implementations>
(Editor's
Draft 16 May 2018)
effectively states that the aui-* attribute pattern is part of the
deliverable.


​To be clear then, the principle objection is to the implied AND STATED
approach of using attributes to solve (at times undefined) problem
statements, which more than one TF member has expressed to me privately as
being overly complex for content authors and unsustainable at scale​. I
concur with these observations.

I would like to see indicated in the Charter a work item that clearly
indicates that one of the important and principle tasks of this Task Force
is to revisit the attribute approach that has been explored to date (due to
expressed concerns), and additionally that each of the modules remove any
reference to aui-*, coga-* or aria-*.

If example code is deemed critical to better understanding, then the TF
should be using notation similar to @@-* (or TBD-*) - but clearly STOP
referencing any of the previously proposed prefixes to further ensure that
observers(*) who are not part of the weekly discussions of this TF can
none-the-less conclude that the existing proposed approach is being
revisited, and that other approaches are being investigated.

(* i.e. AC Reps who will also need to approve this Charter)

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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion