Re: Attribution and Clarification(s)

> Not sure if those comments were meant to include me, but if it was...

Not specifically, no. I had multiple conversations at AccessU with numerous
people involved at the W3C (both directly with COGA related activities and
external observers), including the AC Rep for AMI Canada (Chris O'Brien),
Patrick Lauke, Becky Gibson, John Rochford, Suzanne Kehoe, Jan McSorley,
and more.

Regarding my comment about AC Reps needing to approve the Charter: the
initial CfC was ONLY sent to members of APA and the Personalization TF for
first approval - however the Charter has not yet been presented to the AC
members list for final approval, and my concern centered around the fact
that for those AC reps not closely following this activity, but who
actually bothered to look at the proposed modules (which, per the Charter
are on Rec Track), they could easily conclude we are working on an
author-supplied attribute model, which, as previously noted, some people I
spoke with agree that this is introducing an author lift beyond what most
mainstream authors will undertake (or are able to undertake).

Nothing nefarious about having these discussions: consensus is
traditionally built upon open dialog and seeking common points of view.

JF

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 6:31 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion