RE: Rolling the personalization SC into 4.1.2

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:32 PM

[Jason] I think that approach is too restrictive, and that any text we adopt should be open to having multiple, domain-specific taxonomies.

That would be a good thing in general, but what I don’t get about this idea (and John’s suggestion that the AA one is open, and the AAA is more specific), is how you test it?

If I’m testing a site, do I have to search around schema.org, W3C specs, industry specific places to work out what taxonomy to use? What if you come up with a different answer to the author? Does the site have to declare what it uses?
[Jason] Consider the following two conditions:

  1.  Vocabulary from a taxonomy is used on the site to declare the purpose or function of user interface components (substitute here your preferred substantive requirement).
  2.  The chosen taxonomy is accessibility-supported (or perhaps something slightly stronger than accessibility-supported – meaning, in this case, actively used by user agents or assistive technologies to enhance accessibility for users).
If these conditions are met, so is the proposal. I think this is plainly and reliably testable. There might be a better taxonomy around, but as long as the author has chosen to apply one appropriately supported taxonomy (a concept that we would define, as above), they’ve satisfied their responsibility here.

________________________________

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.

________________________________