- From: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 06:48:21 -0400
- To: Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
- Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Lionel Wolberger <lionel@userway.org>, public-personalization-tf <public-personalization-tf@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFmg2sWzQpDQkOLxKnH3+mZv2-TNZ2mg-O9PM0RbxeMtufmxeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Charles, Yes, I did say I could live with it, but I truly am disappointed, for the reasons I have laid out. I guess I am also disappointed that so many external commenters had such an influence here, but, c'est la guerre. I am moving on, and agree that forward movement is best. JF On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:29 PM Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org> wrote: > I am surprised by your reaction John, because just last week in a call for > consensus you replied and stated on record: > > FWIW, I can live with WAI-ADAPT, could live better with WAI-Adapt (case > sensitivity), and strongly oppose WAI-APT (what's a WAI Apartment > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apt#:~:text=an%20apt%20pupil-,apt,2%20aptitude> > ?) > > > So they actually went with the “could live better with” option you said. > I realize it's not perfect and we could bike shed this for the next year, > lets move on as we have bigger fish to catch ;) > > Thanks > Charles > EOM > > Charles LaPierre > Principal, Accessibility Standards, and Technical Lead, Global Certified > Accessible > Benetech > Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y > > > > On Apr 6, 2022, at 1:59 PM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote: > > This is truly sad to hear Lionel, especially given there were some real > and valid reasons why both Lisa (one of the original co-chairs) and I were > unhappy with that particular name choice. I fear it is far too focused on > the ACC symbols piece, which is but 1/6th of our initial module - even > though that one proposed attribute has taken a lion's share of our time > since i18n got involved (who also did not understand our intentions). > > I am also quite disappointed that a decision is being dictated to the > group that worked on this specification by outside commentators (so much > for seeking consensus at the W3C). I thought that Groups *should favor > proposals that create the weakest objections, which is preferred over > proposals that are supported by a large majority but that cause strong > objections from a few people*. FWIW, I strongly object to this name > choice, and regret that I was not as forceful in expressing the strength of > that objection earlier. > > ********************* > I again reiterate that there is NOTHING specifically related to adaptation > (def.: the act or process of changing to better suit a situation) with > the proposed attributes of: > > - Action > <https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#action-explanation>: > The action attribute provides the context of a button. It is typically used > on a button element or element with role="button". > - Destination > <https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#destination-explanation>: The > destination attribute categorizes the target of a hyperlink. > - Purpose > <https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-content-1.0/#purpose-explanation>: > 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. > > Two of the above three specifically note that the attribute adds > additional contextual information to the parent element. It is true that we > envision that *user-agents* will be able to use our embedded metadata to > customized a specific user's experience based on that contextual > information (which may or may-not involve changing or modifying the user > interface to meet specific user needs), but we are creating an authoring > spec, and not a tool/mechanism/API/process that *does *the adaptation, > which I argue the current name choice seems to allude to. It also presumes > that the ONLY reason to add these attributes and values is for adaptation > purposes, completely ignoring the fact that embedded metadata can be far > more useful than just that. > > For example, the attribute that was a bit of a template for our work, and > one that is currently the only technique for WCAG SC 1.3.5 "Purpose of > Input" is @autocomplete - where we essentially reverse-engineered that > attribute's intent (which was initially intended to simply assist in > filling forms) by noting that besides performing an action, we could use > that attribute and its fixed taxonomy list (tokens) to also output > information about the input in "different modalities". But at the end of > the day, that particular attribute does NOT provide any adaptations - it > simply tells user-agents what data to inject into form inputs. > > I realise it is likely now too late to reverse things - the fiat decision > <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiat#:~:text=1%20:%20an%20authoritative%20or%20arbitrary,world%20was%20created%20by%20fiat.> has > been made, and life moves on. But I remain quite unhappy with how this all > evolved; it was very un-W3C-process > <https://www.w3.org/2021/Process-20211102/#Consensus>-like. > > JF > > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:26 PM Lionel Wolberger <lionel@userway.org> > wrote: > >> Dear Public-Personalization-Tf, >> >> We just completed the WAI Coordination Call, Janina, Matt, Sharon and >> Lionel attending representing Personalization, Shawn and Brent representing >> EO, as well as others. After a discussion where all issues that we have >> raised were aired, the decision was made: >> >> WAI-Adapt >> >> WAI-EO will consider composing a tagline, a short descriptor that would >> appear alongside it for example on the TPAC Introductory Slide. >> >> Thanks for a good process surrounding this, >> >> - Lionel >> >> >> >> >> Lionel Wolberger >> COO, UserWay Inc. >> lionel@userway.org >> UserWay.org <http://userway.org/> >> <https://userway.org/>[image: text] >> > > > -- > *John Foliot* | > Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility | > W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor | > > "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - > Pascal "links go places, buttons do things" > > > -- *John Foliot* | Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility | W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor | "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." - Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2022 10:49:03 UTC