W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-personalization-tf@w3.org > January 2021

Re: proposed

From: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:32:20 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
CC: Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com>, public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7199868F-14D0-4092-9377-8A691D3DCBF4@benetech.org>
I like this John, and Lisa we want to say the Recommendations for Tool Developers  and maybe content authors??  Is a Note Track Recommendation.
And speaking from experience Note Track Rec's can also take a lot of time so committing to both Module 1 TR and a Note Track Best Practices Guide for Tool Developers / (Content Authors?) is a full plate in my opinion. Mentioning new WD of Modules 2&3 would be fine as well

Charles LaPierre
Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
Imageshare Product Manager
Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
Skype: charles_lapierre

On Jan 4, 2021, at 8:24 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:

+1, although I'd be more specific about "develop best practice" - for what, for whom?

Personally, I'd rephrase that to focus on "develop best practice for tool vendors" as well as "develop a best practices authoring guide" (for content creators), as I see those two groups (at least) having very different needs and goals. For example, we discussed switching symbol sets on today's call - that would be on the tool vendors to support, not the content authors.

As another item for our draft charter: would we (or our TF in tandem with the COGA TF) work on/propose one or more new Success Criteria for WCAG 2.3?
(Yes, there will be a WCAG 2.3 - at least, that's where my money is betting - as WCAG 3.0 is still many years out IMHO). Also, if.when our first module is finalized, we could look to ensure that new techniques exist to support WCAG 2.1 SC 1.3.4 & SC 1.3.5. While that likely and ultimately is the remit of the AGWG, I see no harm in us crafting and delivering an initial draft to that WG as part of our mandate. Thoughts there?


On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 11:02 AM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com<mailto:lisa1seeman@gmail.com>> wrote:
This is what we think we want to do over the next 3 years
For coga identified needs:

  *   module 1: pr
  *   module 2: WD  Hopely CR if we can
  *   develop best practice (may included user settings)
  *   module 3 : WD

Let us know what you think

All the best

​John Foliot | Principal Accessibility Specialist
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"

Received on Monday, 4 January 2021 16:32:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 4 January 2021 16:32:36 UTC