Draft Response to Issue 476 - Take 2

I made edits to the TR explainer, the TAG Explainer, and the Content module (branches issue139 and issue476).
Note that regarding the issue with overlap with autocomplete we normally indicate that purpose can be used on more than just input fields.  But, that is not how it is defined in the current content module. It currently specified use on text fields. From the module, "The purpose attribute provides the context of a text input field such as a text box. It is typically used on an input of type text, or an element with a corresponding role.” I have updated my response below accordingly.
Also note that Michael added a section for Stakeholder Feedback /Opposition marked TBD. But, comments from the TAG in issue 476 indicate that this section is not necessary.  We need to resolve.
I have included Janina’s comments about distraction within this response. 
DRAFT Response to issue476
Thanks very much for your detailed review and feedback on the explainer.

Regarding the tools that will be used, we do have a JavaScript solution as a proof of concept implementation that can be seen in this video prepared for TPAC:  https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/apa-personalization.html.
We believe that our use cases call out several sets of users and how this specification can benefit each one. We agree there is overlap but the various vocabularies will allow AT vendors to develop customized solutions for their users’ unique needs. 
We also expect that custom or general browser extensions will be developed by 3rd parties to assist the various disability groups.  This includes updating of AAC software tools to take advantage of the additional semantic information. Also, the addition of personalization information can enhance machine learning. For example, providing alternatives to idioms, it’s raining cats and dogs, or other ambiguous terms. Tools would parse the HTML for the personalization attributes and make the necessary substitutions into the DOM or assistive tool based on the identified user group or individualized need. We also expect that this technology will be important for education publishers who use EPUB. With an HTML attribute this information can be embedded within EPUB documents where reader software or assistive technologies can use it to assist with learning.
To be honest we did not thoroughly investigate microformats. We are wary of relying on a specification that does not fall under the auspices of the W3C. While personalization may be a reasonable use case for this technology, it would slow down the development of the Personalization specification while working to advance microformats to meet our additional, diverse needs. We would also be very interested in hearing @tantek ‘s input on this.

 

The I18N group raised the same question about the similarities between autocomplete and purpose.  Where there was overlap with the autocomplete values, we have included the definition from the WCAG 2.1 Input Purposes for User Interface Components reference:  https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#input-purposes>>. This list of purposes is in support of WCAG 2.1 Success Criterion 1.3.4 Identify Input Purpose. The additional purpose values in the content module go beyond just beyond just collecting information about the user as indicated in 1.3.4 Identify Input Purpose.
You ask a reasonable question about distractions. We do understand that advertising constitutes the critical revenue stream for many content providers. The purpose of allowing users to hide (or systematically show and sequentially review) on page advertising is simply to give users the control other users have over such content. The user without a disability can ignore the add and complete the task. The user who cannot ignore it, or TAB past it conveniently, is forced to grapple with a
stumbling block that prevents them from completing a task.

We believe users will choose to look at advertising because it’s informative. It's an important mechanism for learning about options in life. By allowing users to control when and how they see ads, we allow them the ability to avoid becoming frustrated by processes that prevent task completion. We also allow them to see advertising as potentially useful information, not a source of frustration. Surely, we don't think
a frustrated user will follow up on the ad that caused the frustration?



Becky Gibson | Sr. Accessibility Strategist
Knowbility.org
becky@knowbility.org
Pronouns: she/her/hers