Re: Naming our Spec(s)

Dear John, All:

I've been mulling your suggestion below since you posted this message.
There's a lot to like in it.

A couple of specific responses below ...

John Foliot writes:
> Hi All,
> Coming off of our call today, and I still remain strongly opposed to using
> "Adaptation" in our title, for the reasons I've already mentioned.
> However, in an attempt to listen carefully and seek some level of
> conformance, might I suggest an alternative that looks to capture some of
> what others desire. How does everyone feel about
Thank you for seeking consensus here. I want to acknowledge that

> "Adaptable Personalization: <title> Module"
>    - Pro: It suggests that the content CAN BE adapted, but that the spec
>    does not prescribe how that could or should happen.
>    - Con: "Adaptability" for some of our proposed attributes is a bit of a
>    stretch in practice.
> Thoughts?

Imo, it lacks the key attraction I find in Personalized Adaptations,
namely that Adaptations strongly suggests accessibility. I had to mull
whether flipping the two words and tweaking the grammar, as you did, has
the same effect. Regretably, I don't believe it comes close to
suggesting accessibility, because it would otherwise serve well.

PS: I have not yet found the specific comment I recall us receiving,
though I've a good deal of our archive to scroll through still.
Meanwhile, Michael found the following on Wikipedia which, frankly,
exposes the same problem in the use of "personalization:"



> JF
> -- 
> *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"


Janina Sajka

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 23:40:48 UTC