Re: Purpose of Controls SC

Michael Gower wrote:

> There have been assurances now for 8 months that the ARIA COGA Semantics to Enable Personalization proposal would be mature enough to fulfill that role in time for WCAG 2.1.

There were objections to using it at all, that is *why* we proposed to move a core set of terms into WCAG, to get over the chicken/egg effect.

> The specification remains an influx working draft, and so we are faced with a hastily constructed substitute in this SC. The attributes listed in the SC draft not only deviate from the list in the draft spec, but actually increase the number -- it isn't even a subset.

It was added to following the feedback about aligning with the HTML5 attributes, but no-one is saying it cannot be whittled down.


> The inference that its 140 some-odd attributes are going to be perfected through the public comments process is troubling.

That’s up to 75 tokens/descriptions, which have been put in quickly, and I agree they need work.


> I believe such effort should be handled by the ARIA WG that first published this draft semantics document.

In which case we go back to saying “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”.

Do you object to the principle (which has been discussed a lot on the list), of including a core set of terms that can be used to identify some controls for personalisation/explanation?

If so, then we’ll have to put off this SC until a later version. If not, then I don’t think it’s harmful to use the time after August to refine the terms.

Cheers,

-Alastair