Re: Purpose of Controls SC

        

        
            As discussed on the calls etc, it can be met without use of coga semantics, so there is no dependence.All the bestLisa SeemanLinkedIn, Twitter---- On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 06:28:27 +0300  Michael Gower<michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> wrote ----> There were objections to using it at allI'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 GowerIBM AccessibilityResearch1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3gowerm@ca.ibm.comvoice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034From:        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 AMSubject:        Re: Purpose of Controls SCMichael 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