Re: Purpose of Controls SC

Mike wrote:
> It needs to be developed enough to have some level of legitimacy and
there needs to be evidence of its adoption before we should require its use.

Hi Mike,

TL;DR

NOBODY is requiring the use of COGA Semantics.


While a huge goal for the COGA TF is to introduce the ability to provide
customization/personalization, neither of the draft SC now mention
personalization in their title or definition (requirements), and so
"Personalization", while a longer-term goal, is not currently a requirement
in either of the draft SC (only a potential possibility down the road, once
tooling matures).

I have previously shown how this SC could be satisfied using Microformats,
microdata, and RDFa, and I've also suggested that the AA SC could be met
using aria-describedby. Additionally, there are no Success Criteria today
that mandate the use of a specific technology, and that remains true today
with the current drafts(s). The overarching goal of both of these SC (both
the AA and the AAA) is to encourage the author to add additional metadata
to a fixed list of inputs and controls, such that the metadata can be used
to aid those users who required additional information about any given
input or control.

While the emergent COGA Semantics draft appears to be the built-for-use
solution today (initially with extremely strong backing from IBM BTW), the
draft language for both SC studiously avoid calling out COGA Semantics
specifically:

*Purpose of Controls (AA): *
          In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional
name of conventional user interface components can be programmatically
determined.

*Contextual Information (AAA): *
          In content implemented using markup languages, contextual
information for controls, symbols, and regions can be programmatically
determined using a publicly available vocabulary.

​(source:
https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/support-personalization_ISSUE-6/guidelines/#purpose-of-controls
)​



​...In fact, for the AAA SC, given that COGA is still in editor's draft, it
could be argued (not here please) that *today* COGA Semantics is *NOT*
publicly available, and so not fit for purpose... today.

Bottom line: there is zero dependency on COGA Semantics in either of these
SC​.

JF


On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> > There were objections to using it at all
>
> I'm not sure what the objections were to the COGA semanatics, but for me
> concerns stemmed from its status as a slumbering editor's draft. I
> repeatedly heard we should continue with Personalization on 2.1 because the
> COGA semantics were going to be there in time to give us a framework. My
> concerns have increased, not decreased.
>
> > In which case we go back to saying “Which came first, the chicken or
> the egg?”.
>
> I wasn't involved in the working group back in the days when 4.1.2 Name,
> Role, Value was drafted, but looking at the publication history, the first
> public working draft of ARIA 1.0 came out before the first last call for
> WCAG 2.0. By the time WCAG 2.0 reached CR, ARIA was mature enough that
> multiple browsers supported parts of it. Additionally, 4.1.2 could rely on
> the existence of a well-defined specification for HTML which already
> supported the SC for standard controls.
> That's why 4.1.2 can contain the note it has: "*Note: *This success
> criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user
> interface components. For example, standard HTML controls already meet this
> success criterion when used according to specification."
>
> What do we have that's equivalent support right now for Purpose of
> Controls? John trotted out the use of the title attribute. Several of us
> have mentioned the HTML5 input types. Those are pretty slim pickings in
> comparison.
>
> So to me, there really is no chicken and egg discussion. The specification
> comes first. It needs to be developed enough to have some level of
> legitimacy and there needs to be evidence of its adoption before we should
> require its use.
>
> > 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?
>
> Is there precedence for such a large core set of terms in WCAG? Has there
> been any SC that has attempted such a thing on this scale? I know we try to
> find a balance between pushing for progression and cementing existing
> practice. But don't we seem pretty far ahead of the curve in this
> situation? 2.1 is scheduled for CR be end of year. I don't believe the COGA
> semantics will even be a first public draft by then. That raises a lot of
> flags for me. I would much prefer that effort go into a well-thought-out
> and vetted first public draft of COGA semantics.
>
> I suspect part of the sizable push back to a CFC for this item stems from
> a sense we're being pushed to adopt something that is not mature enough for
> level AA.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> To:        Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
> Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <
> akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Date:        2017-08-14 02:03 AM
> Subject:        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
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion