- From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2018 14:09:41 -0600
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH2ngETzpWjqNt4ZAZ0qBrP60rcKeCR_S3gDSGr2wiqMMCZGtg@mail.gmail.com>
+1 (to this CFC. I'd also be fine with JF's suggestion) glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com | 512.963.3773 *web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals [image: IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)] <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:14 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > While I generally support the addition of an identifier (number) to each > Common Control, I do not believe we agreed to both CP00x for controls, and > ICP00x for inputs. I have a general concern about the introduction of two > controls that are numbered 001 (even if/when a prefixed alpa-string is > added). > > As such I OBJECT to the current notation, but not to the larger idea of > adding the identifier. > > My preference would be to instead (if we really MUST differentiate between > the two types of controls), we use a numbering scheme like this: > > > *7.1 Common Control Purposes* > The following items represent an intended destination or action. > > CP001 > Table of Contents - View or go to a table of contents > > CP002 > Next - View or go to the next item in a series (e.g. a page in a book or > next article) > ... > > > > *7.2 Common Input Control Purposes* > The following input control purposes are intended to relate to the user of > the content and pertain only to information related to that individual. > > > CP101 > Name - Inputs used to handle information about a user’s name(s) (e.g. > first name, family name, suffix, etc.) > > CP102 > Professional Title - Job title (e.g., "Software Engineer", "Senior Vice > President", "Deputy Managing Director") > > > As we do not anticipate the list of Common Controls to grow much beyond > the fixed list we have today, using 001 through 099 for the controls, and > 100 through 199 for the inputs further reduces any confusion that numbering > might introduce. Keeping all controls (interaction or input) prefaced with > CP (Common Purpose) also further unifies the idea that both types of > controls are common and important. > > I won't die on this hill, but feel strongly that we should further discuss > this subtle change. If we can reach a consensus on list that would be great. > > Thanks. > > JF > > > > > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 4:19 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> >> >> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd >> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >> >> >> >> * Adapting the web to all users* >> * Including those with disabilities* >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy >> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >> >> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday January 4nd at 7:00PM Boston time. >>> >>> >>> >>> The Working Group has discussed a change to the list of common purposes >>> referenced in the Identify Common Purpose SC. The specific change is to add >>> an identifier to the lists so the individual items can be easily >>> referenced. >>> >>> >>> >>> The changes can be previewed at http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/c >>> ommon_Purpose_Identifiers/guidelines/index.html#commonpurposes (section >>> 7.1 and 7.2) as implemented in Pull request #652 ( >>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/652). >>> >>> >>> >>> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2018/01/02-ag-minutes.html#item08 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> http://twitter.com/awkawk >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7C%7C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636446629619786436&sdata=c5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA%2FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp%2Fht8%3D&reserved=0> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > John Foliot > Principal Accessibility Strategist > Deque Systems Inc. > john.foliot@deque.com > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion >
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2018 20:10:06 UTC