RE: CFC - Purpose of Controls SC

-1 from me as well to this proposal. I am of the view that in this area, the technologies that can better support the Web access needs of people with learning and cognitive disabilities need to precede guidance in WCAG. Conflating a token which is recognizable in software with text that would appear in a title or label raises unresolved concerns regarding internationalization, localization, and inability to adapt the text to suit the context in which a control appears in a given Web site or application.

If this proposal were adopted, I think the most likely effect would be the emergence of a multiplicity of techniques for satisfying it – poorly supported by assistive technologies, and of limited benefit to actual users with learning and cognitive disabilities, who have a great need for real, sustainable, well specified solutions that actually deliver improved accessibility.

From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 6:23 PM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: CFC - Purpose of Controls SC

-1
I missed the first part of the meeting, but my brief comments about my concerns were in the survey. I'll elaborate here.

I do not believe it is appropriate for a single SC in WCAG to take the place of a specification. 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. Instead, it appears not have been updated since April.
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 has clearly not been vetted for basic syntax (e.g., "city or locality", "my profile", "contact us", etc.), let alone properly normalized (i.e, how does an author differentiate the "name" attribute in an input with attribute using "name" as  the conventional meaning of a person's name). In short, it lacks basic due diligence even as an editorial note. The inference that its 140 some-odd attributes are going to be perfected through the public comments process is troubling. I believe such effort should be handled by the ARIA WG that first published this draft semantics document.

I cannot support this in its current form.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
To:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Date:        2017-08-10 08:22 PM
Subject:        CFC - Purpose of Controls SC
________________________________



Call For Consensus — ends Monday August 14th at 11:30pm Boston time.

The Working Group has reviewed and approved two new related Success Criteria for inclusion in the Editor’s Draft: Purpose of Controls and Contextual Information, at AA and AAA respectively, with the goal of obtaining additional input external to the working group. This CFC is for the AA version of the SC.

Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/10-ag-minutes.html#item02<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F08%2F10-ag-minutes.html%23item02&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C87f9b3b1b8624a60175b08d4e107d8cc%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636380871201139592&sdata=eejg8qSc4JilKFptVCX5byR6gO47GKCz3Cipps4ClcY%3D&reserved=0>

The new SC can be reviewed here, in the context of the full draft:
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#purpose-of-controls<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fsupport-personalization_ISSUE-6%2Fguidelines%2F%23purpose-of-controls&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C87f9b3b1b8624a60175b08d4e107d8cc%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636380871201139592&sdata=QXDqh0gloSA7IVuKPJthJHclq55VayN7k2LSdJg8t9o%3D&reserved=0>

Please note that an editor’s note will be added to this SC to gather feedback on the lengthy list of conventional names before it is published.

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C87f9b3b1b8624a60175b08d4e107d8cc%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636380871201139592&sdata=LpkBDU8A%2Fw7QqivTUcojbcrzT7f0C2Q2kj65OhjFNgs%3D&reserved=0>



________________________________

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.

________________________________