Re: Personalisation examples (Was: Re: should we say "critical controls" or just "controls")

I agree the first bullet will just add confusion, will not make the web
more accessible and steer authors in the wrong direction. I understand it
is there kind of as a placeholder until the attributes are mainstream. I
don't think it will serve that purpose. It will more likely create a big
pushback.

I think most stakeholders will understand the idea of attributes. When I
explain it they usually say something like. "oh that's interesting, I'd
like to see how that works.

I think the SC should be all about the attributes. We would need to place
an "at risk" notification about the status and current level support for
the attributes. Hopefully, the cognitive community can scramble to get the
spec accepted and supported before WCAG 2.1 publishing date.

I'm disappointed that more has not been done since 2008 WCAG 2 by the AT
community, and cognitive advocacy groups. We are basically in the same
technical place with technologies for people with Cognitive disabilities as
we were 15 years ago.

WCAG generally formalizes requirements for accommodations that have emerged
and are in use, it doesn't generally require authors to follow speculative
accommodations.

https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 6:37 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Detlev wrote:
> > So to sum up, I don't think any meaningful user testing activity can be
> carried out based on this implementation.
>
> Whilst true I don’t think that’s fair. The demo was created as a way of
> showing how it would work, not providing a real world test.
>
>
> > I also looked at the example pointed to by Christophe
> http://build.fluidproject.org/prefsEditors/demos/explorationTool/ and
> while this is closer to being usable, there are some odd choices…
>
> For me this is one of the problems with including the 1st bullet point in
> the SC text and encouraging sites to create their own implementations. As a
> user (*especially* if you have cognitive issues) you don’t want to learn a
> new way of doing things for every site.
>
> I’ve tested on-page layout widgets for low vision users, and even after
> being introduced to the widget and them saying it was useful, they didn’t
> use the same widget in the next site they used. These things have to be
> built into *your* technology.
>
> That’s another reason to drop the first bullet (for on-page widgets) and
> concentrate on the key meta-data aspects.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>