RE: Important - we need consensus on what is sufficient support

Hi Jason'
ARIA 1.0 required browser to map to the accessibility API's of the browsers to work. The browser plug-ins we have require basic javascript as a dependent technology which as at least as robust a technology as accessibility API.
 The coga proposed semantics editors draft has also been around for over a year and has had a fair bit of review via our roadmap tables and the open source script implementation. 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 22:42:32 +0200  White<jjwhite@ets.org> wrote ---- 

     
  
     From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com] 
 Sent: Monday, February 6, 2017 3:17 PM
 
 
 
 
   We urgently need consensus on what is sufficient support. This will help us know what we can put to pull request and what we need to rewrite (we may need to rewrite for other reasons but that is a diffrent issue)
 
   
 
  For example for personalization (issues #6) we have
 
   1. an editors draft that is reasonably mature of the semantics. (at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/) for now let us assume it will be a working draft by the time WCAG 2.1 gets to CR.
 
  2. An open source script for an implementation that any author can import into their page to enable personalization in any browser) It has some old semantics but it is being refracted now and that should be done by the end of february - see  https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation
 
  3. We have volunteers working on a free, open source browser extension for chrome so the user can apply personalization to any page using the semantics - that should be done by the end of march. It would have three  personalization skins for different types of users. 
 
   
 
  We also have two industry partners who intend to implement it, but these solutions may be closed. We also have an EU project (SMART4MD) who are designing an APP for people living with dementia who will be compatible with it. (work started over a year ago)
 
   
 
  What else exactly do we need for the group to feel we met the minimum bar.
 [Jason] My answer comes in two parts.
  This would be a good question to pose to reviewers of a working draft. Surely we need not reach consensus on the answer as a prerequisite to publishing.
  2.      Consider the corresponding state of ARIA 1.0 in December 2008 when WCAG 2.0 became a Recommendation, and compare it with the stage of development that you expect the COGA markup proposal to have reached by the expected completion date of WCAG 2.1. ARIA 1.0 was still a W3C Working Draft in December 2008, but, as I recall, it already had at least one browser implementation. Also, unlike the COGA proposal, ARIA was providing information which was already known from years of using accessibility APIs in desktop environments to be very effective in solving accessibility problems. In other words, it was extending to the Web a technology that already had a solid and uncontroversial track record elsewhere. The COGA proposal is different in as much as it’s also introducing new assistive technology functionality. I think new assistive technologies designed to meet the needs of people with learning and cognitive disabilities are highly desirable, but it isn’t clear how much of a record of successful use and accumulated evidence of effectiveness is needed before we can declare a certain markup proposal and the AT it supports to be very effective and appropriate for improving Web accessibility to these audiences.
 
 
 
 
 
  This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
 Thank you for your compliance.