Re: Attribution and Clarification(s)

John said:

"...more than one TF member has expressed to me privately as being overly
complex for content authors and unsustainable at scale​."

And....

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

Not sure if those comments were meant to include me, but if it was ......
in a common lobbying effort used by the objector, here at AccessU in
Austin, he asked me about my thoughts on the Personalization doc. I told
him that often I have suggested that Personalization is something that a
web wide issue that should be addressed by all aspects at the W3C to solve
the aspect of Personalization on a broader scope.

However, I and Knowbility did not object to the APA charter 'on purpose',
and do not intend to object. We +1'ed to approve.

On Wed, May 16, 2018, 3:43 PM John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>