This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

Support Personalization #6

Closed
lseeman opened this Issue Sep 8, 2016 · 74 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@lseeman
Contributor

lseeman commented Sep 8, 2016

Current versions of SC and Definitions

SC Shortname

Support Personalization (minimum)

SC Text

A version of the content is available such that one of the following is true:

  • It serves the same purpose as the original content, important information comes before other information; there are a maximum of 5 controls per screen; and controls have icons and visible text labels.
  • Contextual Information that can be conveyed through author settable properties or meta-data is available for essential functionality and content and critical features can be programmatically determined.

Suggestion for Priority Level

(A)

Related Glossary additions or changes

Contextual information
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process
Personalization
user interface that is driven by the individual user's preferences
Author settable properties
type of distraction, type of help, type of transaction and type of reminder, instructions and status of an element
critical features
features that are required to complete the main role or tasks of the user interface
important information
information the user may need to complete any action or task including an offline task, or related to safety, risks, privacy, health or opportunities
standardized technique
part of a W3C standard, the standard of the native platform, or a WCAG technique (please note: other success criterion have better definitions for this term)

What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.

This could fall under:

WCAG 1 Perceivable - Guidline 1.3 Create content that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout) without losing information or structure

Description

The intent of this success cryteria is to support user preferences or needs of the user. For example, having familiar terms and symbols is key to being able to use the web. However what is familiar for one user may be new for another requiring them to learn new symbols. Personalization could include loading a set of symbols that is appropriate for the specific user, ensuring that all users find the icons simple and familiar.

Technology holds the promise of being extremely flexible and the design of many systems includes the expectation that users will be able to optimise their interaction experience according to their personal preferences or accessibility requirements (needs).

Benefits

This Success Criterion helps users who need extra support or a familure interface. This can include:

  • Symbols and graphics that they are familiar with
  • Tool tips
  • Language they understand
  • Less features
  • Separating advertisements, so they do not confuse them with native content
  • Keyboard short cuts

We need personalization because:

  • Different user needs can conflict
  • Learning new design patterns (and widgets) can be confusing - we want to allow users to stick with what works for them
  • Extra support can be annoying to people who do not need it
  • Making content predictable is necessary for accessibility but can often be considered boring design
  • Ability to change levels of complexity (increase or decrease) - As people skills improve or decrease over time or context.
  • Enable us to really meet the user needs

This helps people with many diffrent cognitive disabilities including people with:

  • Language related disabilities
  • Memory related disabilities
  • Focus and attention related disabilities
  • Disabilities that effects executive function and decision making

Togther this can effect 11% of school age people and over half of people over 60 years old - including mild cognative imparment an Age-Associate Memory Impairment (AAMI).

Research on these benefits can be found at [cudd-1] and the task forces issue-papers on personalization and preferences. Also see the example of an adaptive page.

An example is a user can be a person growing older whose ability to learn new things has slowed down. This includes learning new interfaces, symbols and designs. They also rely on tool tips. So long as the design is on they know they can use the application and stay in the work force. When the interfaces change, they tryand learn the new interface, but the cognitive load becomes to great and they need to retire.
Another example:

"Research has shown that dementia changes a person's perception of distances, objects, and colours. Dementia can reduce or remove the ability to see colours from the blue to purple end of the spectrum. Decorative patterns can 'strobe' and possibly confuse or unsettle people. Even something as simple as a silver strip between different floor coverings in a doorway can appear to a person with dementia like something threatening, such as a step or a hole."

Taken from https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=2591

Related Resources

Resources are for information purposes only, no endorsement implied.

Testability

General test

For HTML and Web Content

  1. Identify the role of elements
  2. Identify the context of regions and controls
  3. Check that the context and role is clear from the markup - if not add the role and context from native HTML, ARIA and COGA (where it is supported)
  4. Ensure content conforms to those standards where they can be used for personlisation or additional support.and set the applicable auther settable properties

Techniques

Techniques include:

  • Use semantics and standardized techniques to provide extra help (COGA Techniques 4.1).
  • Provide semantics that symbols on key content (COGA Techniques 4.2)
  • Enable user agents to find the version of the content that best fits their needs.
  • Use of aria-invalid and aria-required
  • Use of aria epub on document content
  • Use of aria landmarks - but with coga context where supported

Common Failures for Success Criterion

The following are common mistakes that are considered failures of Success Criterion 3.1.1 by the WCAG Working Group.

  1. standardized semantics for personalization were appropriate and not used.
  2. standardized platform technique for personalization were appropriate and not used.
@joshueoconnor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
Contributor

joshueoconnor commented Jan 13, 2017

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jan 20, 2017

Contributor

As a goal, I am all for supporting personalization. As noted here,

Technology holds the promise of being extremely flexible

But my concerns are also tied up in that same statement; "holding promise" is a difficult future vision to build a current SC upon. My perception is that authors have no existing standardized semantics to cover this that aren't already requirements for other SC. Until such semantics are developed and adopted, it's pretty tough to implement this, especially as a level A requirement.

My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria. That could mean working to create new Personalization scenarios under the Sufficient Techniques section of existing SC. For example, Timing Adjustable could have a new scenario "Where personalization is supported" that outlines what techniques can be used to support adjusting timing on a user preference basis.

Once the ecosystem better supports it (specification in place, adoption of personalization techniques by WCAG and UAAG) then I think we may approach a time when there could be value in a generic Support Personalization SC to catch failures. But we also might find that this need will be best expressed as one or more failure techniques which can be applied to any of those situations where personalization can be used to satisfy other SCs.

Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 20, 2017

As a goal, I am all for supporting personalization. As noted here,

Technology holds the promise of being extremely flexible

But my concerns are also tied up in that same statement; "holding promise" is a difficult future vision to build a current SC upon. My perception is that authors have no existing standardized semantics to cover this that aren't already requirements for other SC. Until such semantics are developed and adopted, it's pretty tough to implement this, especially as a level A requirement.

My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria. That could mean working to create new Personalization scenarios under the Sufficient Techniques section of existing SC. For example, Timing Adjustable could have a new scenario "Where personalization is supported" that outlines what techniques can be used to support adjusting timing on a user preference basis.

Once the ecosystem better supports it (specification in place, adoption of personalization techniques by WCAG and UAAG) then I think we may approach a time when there could be value in a generic Support Personalization SC to catch failures. But we also might find that this need will be best expressed as one or more failure techniques which can be applied to any of those situations where personalization can be used to satisfy other SCs.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 23, 2017

Contributor

Mike we have semantics that are freely available at https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/
we have an open implementation at https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation
Both Pearson and IBM are saying they will be implementing it once it is in a working draft so by the time we get to CR we should have everything

Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 23, 2017

Mike we have semantics that are freely available at https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/
we have an open implementation at https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation
Both Pearson and IBM are saying they will be implementing it once it is in a working draft so by the time we get to CR we should have everything

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmcsorle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmcsorle

jmcsorle Jan 24, 2017

Contributor

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your comment. This SC has been assigned to me to manage. It would be very helpful to learn from you what you think this still needs in order to be moved on to CR. Specifically, I was hoping that you could provide some additional details about the following statement you made: "My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria."

In the education industry and in assessment, personalization is becoming increasingly important and there is a need for the W3C to bring clarity and stability to how to implement this. As more and more instructional and assessment resources are moving to digital and online formats, there are design principles moving through schools and education publishing companies, such as Universal Design for Learning, that are falling short of the kinds of detail needed to truly provide for the personalization needs of students with disabilities. I believe we need to seriously consider how to effectively address the issue of personalization in the next working draft, so I would like to have more dialog about why you and others may think this SC could compromise techniques or methods of other SCs. Could you please provide an example so that I can better understand your concerns? Thanks again for your help!

Thanks!

Contributor

jmcsorle commented Jan 24, 2017

Hi Mike,

Thank you for your comment. This SC has been assigned to me to manage. It would be very helpful to learn from you what you think this still needs in order to be moved on to CR. Specifically, I was hoping that you could provide some additional details about the following statement you made: "My gut feeling on this is that in the near term personalization could comprise a series of techniques or methods that can be used to meet more targeted success criteria."

In the education industry and in assessment, personalization is becoming increasingly important and there is a need for the W3C to bring clarity and stability to how to implement this. As more and more instructional and assessment resources are moving to digital and online formats, there are design principles moving through schools and education publishing companies, such as Universal Design for Learning, that are falling short of the kinds of detail needed to truly provide for the personalization needs of students with disabilities. I believe we need to seriously consider how to effectively address the issue of personalization in the next working draft, so I would like to have more dialog about why you and others may think this SC could compromise techniques or methods of other SCs. Could you please provide an example so that I can better understand your concerns? Thanks again for your help!

Thanks!

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 24, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 24, 2017

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jan 24, 2017

Contributor

I would like to have more dialog about why you and others may think this SC could compromise techniques or methods of other SCs. Could you please provide an example so that I can better understand your concerns?

Adoption of WAI-ARIA would be an example of what I'm discussion. There was no "Support ARIA" SC introduced. Instead, 21 ARIA success techniques have been written and incorporated into existing SCs. They were added to:

  • Success Criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.3 (Error Suggestion)
  • Success Criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value)
  • Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content)
  • Success Criterion 2.4.4 (Link Purpose (In Context))
  • Success Criterion 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.1 (Error Identification)

That sounds like a good starting list for Personalization techniques in exisiting SCs. There are others, including some 2.1 candidates, which could take advantage of Personalization techniques.

WAI-ARIA 1.0 also serves as an example of adoption time lines. The first public draft came out in 2006. It went through two years of working drafts before a last call. Then another year of drafting before a second last call. I believe between these two last calls is when the first draft WCAG ARIA techniques and the first fledgling browser support appeared. It became a candidate recommendation in 2011, and a proposed recommendation three years after that. An eight year journey, with a progressive adoption of ARIA into browsers, techniques and ATs along the way.

I'd be curious why you don't feel such a model could be used for Personalization, which is likely facing a similar timeline.

Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 24, 2017

I would like to have more dialog about why you and others may think this SC could compromise techniques or methods of other SCs. Could you please provide an example so that I can better understand your concerns?

Adoption of WAI-ARIA would be an example of what I'm discussion. There was no "Support ARIA" SC introduced. Instead, 21 ARIA success techniques have been written and incorporated into existing SCs. They were added to:

  • Success Criterion 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.3 (Error Suggestion)
  • Success Criterion 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value)
  • Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content)
  • Success Criterion 2.4.4 (Link Purpose (In Context))
  • Success Criterion 2.4.1 (Bypass Blocks)
  • Success Criterion 3.3.1 (Error Identification)

That sounds like a good starting list for Personalization techniques in exisiting SCs. There are others, including some 2.1 candidates, which could take advantage of Personalization techniques.

WAI-ARIA 1.0 also serves as an example of adoption time lines. The first public draft came out in 2006. It went through two years of working drafts before a last call. Then another year of drafting before a second last call. I believe between these two last calls is when the first draft WCAG ARIA techniques and the first fledgling browser support appeared. It became a candidate recommendation in 2011, and a proposed recommendation three years after that. An eight year journey, with a progressive adoption of ARIA into browsers, techniques and ATs along the way.

I'd be curious why you don't feel such a model could be used for Personalization, which is likely facing a similar timeline.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 24, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 24, 2017

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jan 24, 2017

Contributor

A big difference between Name, Role, Value and what you are proposing is in the note for 4.1.2:

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.

So Name, Role, Value is concerned with ensuring that authors who create custom widgets meet expected behaviour. If authors use HTML properly, there is no additional work.

As it reads now, Personalization would seem to require every author to use the author-settable properties and attributes in the draft COGA semanatics proposal or fail WCAG. That list at the moment includes about 2 dozen attributes, of which just a couple represent significant additional work. (Further, the list doesn't include Personalization outside the COGA realm that would support solutions for any number of other SCs, such as keyboard assignments, persistence/timing and location of tool tips and other non-persistent information, Audio Control, Pause-Stop-Hide, Abbreviations, etc.)

Focusing on techniques, which let authors choose to address various issues through a personalization solution, is a more easily adopted and incremental method. Contrast that with an implementation that seems to compel authors to begin adding Personalization to all pertinent content.

Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 24, 2017

A big difference between Name, Role, Value and what you are proposing is in the note for 4.1.2:

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.

So Name, Role, Value is concerned with ensuring that authors who create custom widgets meet expected behaviour. If authors use HTML properly, there is no additional work.

As it reads now, Personalization would seem to require every author to use the author-settable properties and attributes in the draft COGA semanatics proposal or fail WCAG. That list at the moment includes about 2 dozen attributes, of which just a couple represent significant additional work. (Further, the list doesn't include Personalization outside the COGA realm that would support solutions for any number of other SCs, such as keyboard assignments, persistence/timing and location of tool tips and other non-persistent information, Audio Control, Pause-Stop-Hide, Abbreviations, etc.)

Focusing on techniques, which let authors choose to address various issues through a personalization solution, is a more easily adopted and incremental method. Contrast that with an implementation that seems to compel authors to begin adding Personalization to all pertinent content.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 25, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 25, 2017

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

You would only add the ones that apply. Most have default values as well.

Thanks for that clarification. Can I get more details on that, please? The draft doc mentions a few defaults, but it's not exhaustive. I edited out my initial list of your attributes, but if we're going to tackle this, I think we need them, especially considering your demo site uses different ones:

  • coga-simplification
  • coga-action
  • coga-destination
  • coga-field
  • coga-context
  • coga-concept
  • coga-numberfree
  • coga-literal
  • coga-feedback
  • coga-explain
  • coga-moreinfo
  • coga-extrahelp
  • coga-helptype
  • coga-hidden
  • coga-alternative
  • coga-easylang
  • coga-messageimportance
  • coga-messagefrom
  • coga-messagecontext
  • coga-messagetime
  • coga-distraction
  • coga-trigger

On your demo page, I'm seeing endemic use of aria-importance (on pretty much all content) and common usage of aria-function. I'm not sure what aria-importance maps to on the above list. I'm assuming aria-function maps to coga-action?

If we are going to assess the impact of this SC, I think there needs to be a lot more clarity on what attributes have defaults (and I'm assuming therefore no authoring requirement) and what require effort and how much.

If it does not make it into WCAG then non of this happens and people will continue to be left out, as they are now.

There are a number of existing and proposed SCs that either specifically mention personalization or could obviously be achieved with it. ARIA was incorporated into WCAG without a specific SC requiring its use; why can't personalization make it in without being an SC? I continue to have concerns about including an SC that at the moment is extremely hard to quantify for effort or scope -- even the demo site you point to uses completely different attributes. It makes for a shaky case for successful adoption, particularly for a level A.

Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 25, 2017

You would only add the ones that apply. Most have default values as well.

Thanks for that clarification. Can I get more details on that, please? The draft doc mentions a few defaults, but it's not exhaustive. I edited out my initial list of your attributes, but if we're going to tackle this, I think we need them, especially considering your demo site uses different ones:

  • coga-simplification
  • coga-action
  • coga-destination
  • coga-field
  • coga-context
  • coga-concept
  • coga-numberfree
  • coga-literal
  • coga-feedback
  • coga-explain
  • coga-moreinfo
  • coga-extrahelp
  • coga-helptype
  • coga-hidden
  • coga-alternative
  • coga-easylang
  • coga-messageimportance
  • coga-messagefrom
  • coga-messagecontext
  • coga-messagetime
  • coga-distraction
  • coga-trigger

On your demo page, I'm seeing endemic use of aria-importance (on pretty much all content) and common usage of aria-function. I'm not sure what aria-importance maps to on the above list. I'm assuming aria-function maps to coga-action?

If we are going to assess the impact of this SC, I think there needs to be a lot more clarity on what attributes have defaults (and I'm assuming therefore no authoring requirement) and what require effort and how much.

If it does not make it into WCAG then non of this happens and people will continue to be left out, as they are now.

There are a number of existing and proposed SCs that either specifically mention personalization or could obviously be achieved with it. ARIA was incorporated into WCAG without a specific SC requiring its use; why can't personalization make it in without being an SC? I continue to have concerns about including an SC that at the moment is extremely hard to quantify for effort or scope -- even the demo site you point to uses completely different attributes. It makes for a shaky case for successful adoption, particularly for a level A.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 25, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 25, 2017

@jmcsorle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmcsorle

jmcsorle Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

Mike, are you okay with this, or do you need Lisa to specify which attributes have defaults, including nonvalid, or are you comfortable taking her word that there will be sufficient defaults in the specification by the time it gets to working draft in a few months? If you want the defaults defined, we would prefer to make the edits in the specification. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts or concerns related to this.

Contributor

jmcsorle commented Jan 25, 2017

Mike, are you okay with this, or do you need Lisa to specify which attributes have defaults, including nonvalid, or are you comfortable taking her word that there will be sufficient defaults in the specification by the time it gets to working draft in a few months? If you want the defaults defined, we would prefer to make the edits in the specification. Please let me know if you have any additional thoughts or concerns related to this.

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jan 25, 2017

Contributor

@jmcsorle, yes, I agree the edits should be in the spec.

are you comfortable taking her word that there will be sufficient defaults in the specification by the time it gets to working draft in a few months?

If the spec working draft does not contain sufficient information by the time WCAG 2.1 goes to draft in a month, I think it's going to be tough to get support on this as it is. That's obviously just my opinion. It would be nice to get some others weighing in on this SC, which may prove <span coga-literal="most people disagree with my opinion"> I'm out in left field! </span>

I realize I am likely viewed as adversarial in this thread, but my approach to all the candidates has been to put on my critical hat and figure out what could keep the idea from being adopted. If there are scope problems, they need to be fixed; if there are language problems, they need to be rewritten; if it isn't really an author responsibility, it needs to be reconsidered, etc.

My concern with Support Personalization is that it seems both overly ambitious for the current circumstances (lack of user agent and AT support, and immaturity of supporting materials) and overly constrained (from the perspective that personalization could contain a great deal more than just cognitive, and be used to successfully address a number of other significant existing issues).

Ironically, I just got off a call where I was arguing on the other side of a similar discussion (this one around keyboard usage) about how authoring practices need to be in place to justify the need to get UAAG and AT buy-in. So why don't I leave this one alone for now and wait and see what someone else offers?

Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 25, 2017

@jmcsorle, yes, I agree the edits should be in the spec.

are you comfortable taking her word that there will be sufficient defaults in the specification by the time it gets to working draft in a few months?

If the spec working draft does not contain sufficient information by the time WCAG 2.1 goes to draft in a month, I think it's going to be tough to get support on this as it is. That's obviously just my opinion. It would be nice to get some others weighing in on this SC, which may prove <span coga-literal="most people disagree with my opinion"> I'm out in left field! </span>

I realize I am likely viewed as adversarial in this thread, but my approach to all the candidates has been to put on my critical hat and figure out what could keep the idea from being adopted. If there are scope problems, they need to be fixed; if there are language problems, they need to be rewritten; if it isn't really an author responsibility, it needs to be reconsidered, etc.

My concern with Support Personalization is that it seems both overly ambitious for the current circumstances (lack of user agent and AT support, and immaturity of supporting materials) and overly constrained (from the perspective that personalization could contain a great deal more than just cognitive, and be used to successfully address a number of other significant existing issues).

Ironically, I just got off a call where I was arguing on the other side of a similar discussion (this one around keyboard usage) about how authoring practices need to be in place to justify the need to get UAAG and AT buy-in. So why don't I leave this one alone for now and wait and see what someone else offers?

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jan 31, 2017

Contributor

maybe we should split this into two
at level A have a limited scope of critical features and a have the orignal one as AA
critical features and is already defined in # 39

the new sc would read:
Support personalization: Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Where the number of steps in a process can be reduced, the user can control the trade off between function and simplification.

Exception: Information does not need to be exposed when there is not a standardized way of exposing it in the technology or the platform.

Notes are the same as the original

Contributor

lseeman commented Jan 31, 2017

maybe we should split this into two
at level A have a limited scope of critical features and a have the orignal one as AA
critical features and is already defined in # 39

the new sc would read:
Support personalization: Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Where the number of steps in a process can be reduced, the user can control the trade off between function and simplification.

Exception: Information does not need to be exposed when there is not a standardized way of exposing it in the technology or the platform.

Notes are the same as the original

@joshueoconnor

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joshueoconnor

joshueoconnor Feb 4, 2017

Contributor

@lseeman I don't see a GH username for Jan here. Is there a PR ready for this one or do you need more time?

Contributor

joshueoconnor commented Feb 4, 2017

@lseeman I don't see a GH username for Jan here. Is there a PR ready for this one or do you need more time?

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Feb 7, 2017

Contributor

on the phone with mike G

mike and me discussed the following
the new sc would read:

  1. Support personalization: Contextual information and author settable properties of regions, critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Exception: Information does not need to be exposed when there is not a standardized technique of exposing it in the technology or the platform.

note that critical features and important information and standardized technique are already defined terms at https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html

we then have another sc (level A or AA)

Where the number of steps in a process can be reduced, and easily available mechanism exists to alow the user to control the trade off between function and simplification.

(techneques inlude marking things with aria-required, providing a less options button and using personlization etc)

at AAA we have
Support personalization (all content): Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and elements are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Contributor

lseeman commented Feb 7, 2017

on the phone with mike G

mike and me discussed the following
the new sc would read:

  1. Support personalization: Contextual information and author settable properties of regions, critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Exception: Information does not need to be exposed when there is not a standardized technique of exposing it in the technology or the platform.

note that critical features and important information and standardized technique are already defined terms at https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/extension/index.html

we then have another sc (level A or AA)

Where the number of steps in a process can be reduced, and easily available mechanism exists to alow the user to control the trade off between function and simplification.

(techneques inlude marking things with aria-required, providing a less options button and using personlization etc)

at AAA we have
Support personalization (all content): Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and elements are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

@jspellman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jspellman

jspellman Feb 9, 2017

I see there are three separate success criteria here: Reduce the number of steps, provide contextual information, and provide customizable user preferences. This proposal is a little rough, but I would recommend:

  1. Reduce Steps: Provide settings, shortcuts or other methods for return users so they can reduce the number of steps needed to perform a task. Example: A shopping cart that saves and pre-fills the address and credit card information.
  2. Contextual Information: Provide explanatory text, simplified instructions, or descriptive images to improve clarity and provide multiple means of representation of a concept.
    Definition of Contextual Information is unclear whether it is needed or provided. Recommend: Contextual Information: Information necessary to the understanding of the text or term. (Beck, Isabel 2009 Robust Vocabulary Instruction)
  3. Customizable User Preferences: Provide programmatically determinable semantics that allows the user (or their assistive technology) to make changes to their experience to meet their individual needs. This includes: number types (e.g. phone, dates, currency), interruptions (e.g. aria live regions), abbreviations, definitions or accordions with additional instructions or expanded information,

jspellman commented Feb 9, 2017

I see there are three separate success criteria here: Reduce the number of steps, provide contextual information, and provide customizable user preferences. This proposal is a little rough, but I would recommend:

  1. Reduce Steps: Provide settings, shortcuts or other methods for return users so they can reduce the number of steps needed to perform a task. Example: A shopping cart that saves and pre-fills the address and credit card information.
  2. Contextual Information: Provide explanatory text, simplified instructions, or descriptive images to improve clarity and provide multiple means of representation of a concept.
    Definition of Contextual Information is unclear whether it is needed or provided. Recommend: Contextual Information: Information necessary to the understanding of the text or term. (Beck, Isabel 2009 Robust Vocabulary Instruction)
  3. Customizable User Preferences: Provide programmatically determinable semantics that allows the user (or their assistive technology) to make changes to their experience to meet their individual needs. This includes: number types (e.g. phone, dates, currency), interruptions (e.g. aria live regions), abbreviations, definitions or accordions with additional instructions or expanded information,
@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Feb 10, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Feb 10, 2017

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Feb 10, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Feb 10, 2017

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Feb 10, 2017

Contributor
Contributor

lseeman commented Feb 10, 2017

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Feb 13, 2017

Contributor

@jspellman sorry i pressed reply to the thread. i will try again:
proposed wording SC1 :
extra steps: When a process contains optional steps that are not required to complete the primary task, the user can control the trade off between function and simplification.
with defined term
"Primary task" defined as
The core task the user has embarked on.
----------SC 2

Support personalization (minimum) : Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

with the ecseptions and definitions as above but....
define Contextual information:
Semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process

____sc3
Support personalization (all content): Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and elements are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Definitions and exceptions are the same as above

Does that address the mix

Contributor

lseeman commented Feb 13, 2017

@jspellman sorry i pressed reply to the thread. i will try again:
proposed wording SC1 :
extra steps: When a process contains optional steps that are not required to complete the primary task, the user can control the trade off between function and simplification.
with defined term
"Primary task" defined as
The core task the user has embarked on.
----------SC 2

Support personalization (minimum) : Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and critical features and important information are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

with the ecseptions and definitions as above but....
define Contextual information:
Semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process

____sc3
Support personalization (all content): Contextual information and author settable properties of regions and elements are programatically determinable so that personalization is available.

Definitions and exceptions are the same as above

Does that address the mix

jmcsorle added a commit to jmcsorle/wcag21 that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017

Issue6-Support Personalization
Original issue located at the following address:  w3c#6
SC Support Personalization added at line 371
Glossary Terms Added are:
Critical Features
Important Information
Standardized Technique
Contextual Information
Personalization
Author settable properties

jmcsorle added a commit to jmcsorle/wcag21 that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017

Issue6-ExtraSteps
SC: Extra Steps added to the end of Guideline Adaptable
Glossary Term Added:  Primary Task
Original Issue can be found at: w3c#6

jmcsorle added a commit to jmcsorle/wcag21 that referenced this issue Feb 13, 2017

Issue6-SupportPersonalization-AllContent
The original issue can be found at the following address: w3c#6
Support Personalization (all content) SC added to the end of Perceivable, Guideline Adaptable
Glossary Terms added:
-author settable properties
-contextual information
-critical features
-important information
-personalization
-standardized technique
@jmcsorle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jmcsorle

jmcsorle Feb 13, 2017

Contributor

The following pull requests have been created for this issue:
Support Personalization (minimum) - #125
Extra Steps - #126
Support Personalization (all content) - #127

Contributor

jmcsorle commented Feb 13, 2017

The following pull requests have been created for this issue:
Support Personalization (minimum) - #125
Extra Steps - #126
Support Personalization (all content) - #127

@lseeman lseeman closed this Feb 13, 2017

@awkawk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@awkawk

awkawk Feb 23, 2017

Member

Updated the issue description to reflect the FPWD text and reopening issue.

Member

awkawk commented Feb 23, 2017

Updated the issue description to reflect the FPWD text and reopening issue.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 12, 2017

Contributor

when looking at the above examples it might be useful to know accessibility in hebrew is נגישות

Also the above examples include, telecom, healthcare, government, airline, education and businesses

I know of three Israeli companies providing accessibility though personlization of aria semantics and metadata. so this is widely implemented here

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 12, 2017

when looking at the above examples it might be useful to know accessibility in hebrew is נגישות

Also the above examples include, telecom, healthcare, government, airline, education and businesses

I know of three Israeli companies providing accessibility though personlization of aria semantics and metadata. so this is widely implemented here

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jun 12, 2017

Contributor

people think that personilazation is a new technology in the accessibility space.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the question for me has never been whether there are techniques to support personalization and applications undertaking it now. If you look through my comments, you'll see that I have been advocating for capturing those techniques and incorporating them into existing relevant SCs since this issue was opened.

But the approach being taken has been to require the use of a draft standard, and the tactic seems to be to insist that this is the only way of incorporating personalization in WCAG. Given the years of examples you provide, this is obviously not the only means.
The approach makes it very hard to meaningfully engage in this topic. In example, back in January, assurance was offered that when the standard was better developed most of the 2 dozen attributes will have default values.
Six months later the latest draft shows that most do not have default values.
The status of the standard, upon which this entire SC is currently built, continues to be one of the showstoppers. Additionally, all the other concerns I've listed (e.g., the fact the standard is targetted strictly at COGA) still apply, as far as I can tell.

Contributor

mbgower commented Jun 12, 2017

people think that personilazation is a new technology in the accessibility space.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the question for me has never been whether there are techniques to support personalization and applications undertaking it now. If you look through my comments, you'll see that I have been advocating for capturing those techniques and incorporating them into existing relevant SCs since this issue was opened.

But the approach being taken has been to require the use of a draft standard, and the tactic seems to be to insist that this is the only way of incorporating personalization in WCAG. Given the years of examples you provide, this is obviously not the only means.
The approach makes it very hard to meaningfully engage in this topic. In example, back in January, assurance was offered that when the standard was better developed most of the 2 dozen attributes will have default values.
Six months later the latest draft shows that most do not have default values.
The status of the standard, upon which this entire SC is currently built, continues to be one of the showstoppers. Additionally, all the other concerns I've listed (e.g., the fact the standard is targetted strictly at COGA) still apply, as far as I can tell.

@patrickhlauke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@patrickhlauke

patrickhlauke Jun 12, 2017

Member

the approach being taken has been to require the use of a draft standard, and the tactic seems to be to insist that this is the only way of incorporating personalization in WCAG. Given the years of examples you provide, this is obviously not the only means.

yes, i was about to post something along the same lines, but mike captured it much more succinctly here. this has been the main concern on this SC since the start, I believe.

Member

patrickhlauke commented Jun 12, 2017

the approach being taken has been to require the use of a draft standard, and the tactic seems to be to insist that this is the only way of incorporating personalization in WCAG. Given the years of examples you provide, this is obviously not the only means.

yes, i was about to post something along the same lines, but mike captured it much more succinctly here. this has been the main concern on this SC since the start, I believe.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 12, 2017

Contributor

current wording being discussed "Contextual Information that can be conveyed through author settable properties is available for essential functionality and content. Essential functionality and content can be programmatically identified when they can be identified through author settable properties."

definitions:

Essential functionality and content can be defined as : the minimum functionality and content that is essential to fulfill the purpose or understand the topic of the content. The purpose or topic of the content should be identified in the page title.

Contextual information (already defined)
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content, this includes: concept; role; relevance and information for simplification; information that clarifies the meaning; relationships to other elements; position in a process; process of which this element is a part

example test process: Identify minimum functionality and content that is essential to fulfill the purpose or understand the topic of the content.
for the above: check that contextual information is programmatic determinable via auther setableble properties (if yes - pass)
if not is it available though metadata (if yes - pass)
if not is it implied though the dom or tag names (if yes - pass)
can it be set though author settable properties (if not -pass . if yes fail)

repeat for if the essential functions have been identified

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 12, 2017

current wording being discussed "Contextual Information that can be conveyed through author settable properties is available for essential functionality and content. Essential functionality and content can be programmatically identified when they can be identified through author settable properties."

definitions:

Essential functionality and content can be defined as : the minimum functionality and content that is essential to fulfill the purpose or understand the topic of the content. The purpose or topic of the content should be identified in the page title.

Contextual information (already defined)
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content, this includes: concept; role; relevance and information for simplification; information that clarifies the meaning; relationships to other elements; position in a process; process of which this element is a part

example test process: Identify minimum functionality and content that is essential to fulfill the purpose or understand the topic of the content.
for the above: check that contextual information is programmatic determinable via auther setableble properties (if yes - pass)
if not is it available though metadata (if yes - pass)
if not is it implied though the dom or tag names (if yes - pass)
can it be set though author settable properties (if not -pass . if yes fail)

repeat for if the essential functions have been identified

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 15, 2017

Contributor

@mbgower @detlevhfischer
Some follow up:
I did go though the specification for semantics and set as many defaults as I could. But it did not many sense ti have default which would probably be incorrect, So in many cases we did not add defaults. Basicly - we tried...
Also we are establishing techniques using other specifications and methods such as APIP and microformats. i would appreciate some help with this.

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 15, 2017

@mbgower @detlevhfischer
Some follow up:
I did go though the specification for semantics and set as many defaults as I could. But it did not many sense ti have default which would probably be incorrect, So in many cases we did not add defaults. Basicly - we tried...
Also we are establishing techniques using other specifications and methods such as APIP and microformats. i would appreciate some help with this.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 15, 2017

Contributor

examples in microdata using wordnet

I am having trouble putting code in here so I am using brackets in place of "<"

(a itemprop="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homepage" ) Home (/a)

i need to check that this is valid code

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 15, 2017

examples in microdata using wordnet

I am having trouble putting code in here so I am using brackets in place of "<"

(a itemprop="http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homepage" ) Home (/a)

i need to check that this is valid code

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 15, 2017

Contributor

example with schema.org for idintifing the context

(button type="button" itemprop="http://schema.org/SendAction" >Send(/button>

eample for idtifing the key item

(a itemprop="mainEntityOfPage" href="http://example.com/article-1" >The full artical (/a>

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 15, 2017

example with schema.org for idintifing the context

(button type="button" itemprop="http://schema.org/SendAction" >Send(/button>

eample for idtifing the key item

(a itemprop="mainEntityOfPage" href="http://example.com/article-1" >The full artical (/a>

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 19, 2017

Contributor

ims global data types apip : classification.purpose also adds context

Also from learning data schema

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 19, 2017

ims global data types apip : classification.purpose also adds context

Also from learning data schema

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 20, 2017

Contributor

another techneque Use rel such as rel="next" and rel="prev" links

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 20, 2017

another techneque Use rel such as rel="next" and rel="prev" links

@jake-abma

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jake-abma

jake-abma Jun 23, 2017

Contributor

Pseudo-assistive technology like the use of lay-overs are not the same thing as the text in the SC. There’s even a danger to promote such technologies as they are often laborious to handle, one-off on every site and provide for a means to pull out off the real problem for site owners which is making websites accessible / using standards to start with.

I also do see the need for these kind of personal adjustments from a user perspective but besides these technologies we also have the accessibility settings in the OS, the settings in a browser, plugins / extensions, different devices and assistive technology.

The lay-overs are just another fix op top possibility and the SC should be about a standard implementation.

Contributor

jake-abma commented Jun 23, 2017

Pseudo-assistive technology like the use of lay-overs are not the same thing as the text in the SC. There’s even a danger to promote such technologies as they are often laborious to handle, one-off on every site and provide for a means to pull out off the real problem for site owners which is making websites accessible / using standards to start with.

I also do see the need for these kind of personal adjustments from a user perspective but besides these technologies we also have the accessibility settings in the OS, the settings in a browser, plugins / extensions, different devices and assistive technology.

The lay-overs are just another fix op top possibility and the SC should be about a standard implementation.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 29, 2017

Contributor

the following wording went to survey:
For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or
-core functionality and content, and contextual information for core functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

Note: the main issue was is "core" clear and testable

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 29, 2017

the following wording went to survey:
For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or
-core functionality and content, and contextual information for core functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

Note: the main issue was is "core" clear and testable

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 29, 2017

Contributor

new wording that is hopefuly closer is:
For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

  • a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
  • contextual information or context sensitive help is availible for regions, form elements, main navigation elements and interactive controls is programmatically determined

.

to discuss on the call today

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 29, 2017

new wording that is hopefuly closer is:
For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

  • a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
  • contextual information or context sensitive help is availible for regions, form elements, main navigation elements and interactive controls is programmatically determined

.

to discuss on the call today

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jun 30, 2017

Contributor

Hi
The link to the simple demo is https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html

I am also forwarding the email from User1st who integrated it into their platform in about 3 hours. Note this was for old wording so it would need to be changed to conform to the current version.

all the best
Lisa

---- On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:49:10 +0300 Amihai Mironamihai@user1st.com wrote ----
Hey Lisa,
A. Enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality:

A. Go to :http://www.imss.gob.mx/transparencia/normatividad-fp
B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile
C. an ICON will appears near each download link (this is a customized icon, that a user could have created)

Inline image 1

Please find the script to make this function work:
Script:
var image = "image url for download";
if($("._u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp").length < $(".glyphicon-download-alt").length)
{
$(".glyphicon-download-alt").after($("")
.setAttr("src", image)
.css("margin-left","10px")
.css("width","50px")
.addClass("_u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp")
.setAttr("alt", "download")
);
}
(Note: The image base 64)

B: a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content:

Hide specific section in help profile

A. Go to http://www.imss.gob.mx/
B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile
C. The section on the bottom will disapear

Script:
$(".pane-v-imss-numeros").closest(".inside.panels-flexible-row-inside.panels-flexible-row-2-2-inside").hide();

תמונה מוטבעת 1

Summary - The entire process of creating such a script takes 15-60 minutes including testing.
Please let me know if that works for you.

Thank you,
Amihai

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:59 PM, lisa.seeman lisa.seeman@zoho.com wrote:
Hi

On Tuesday the WCAG group will debate a proposal for personlization for wcag 2.1. We will have a week and a half to get it though.

the proposal is:

For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or
core functionality and content, and contextual information for essential functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

The proposal is at #6

Core is defined as:
the mimimum functionality and content that is needed for users to identify the topic and fulfill the purpose of the content

For example, core content is generally identified by the page title. Core functionality is that which is needed to fulfill the purpose described by the page title

contextual information is currently defined as :
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process

Supporting semantics is proposed at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/

We need an example to show it as doable / useful including approximations how long it would take for authors to add the semantics.

Thanks for all your help
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

--

Amihai Miron
CEO User1st

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

Contributor

lseeman commented Jun 30, 2017

Hi
The link to the simple demo is https://rawgit.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/demo/conactUs.html

I am also forwarding the email from User1st who integrated it into their platform in about 3 hours. Note this was for old wording so it would need to be changed to conform to the current version.

all the best
Lisa

---- On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 09:49:10 +0300 Amihai Mironamihai@user1st.com wrote ----
Hey Lisa,
A. Enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality:

A. Go to :http://www.imss.gob.mx/transparencia/normatividad-fp
B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile
C. an ICON will appears near each download link (this is a customized icon, that a user could have created)

Inline image 1

Please find the script to make this function work:
Script:
var image = "image url for download";
if($("._u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp").length < $(".glyphicon-download-alt").length)
{
$(".glyphicon-download-alt").after($("")
.setAttr("src", image)
.css("margin-left","10px")
.css("width","50px")
.addClass("_u1st_uniqueDownloadHelp")
.setAttr("alt", "download")
);
}
(Note: The image base 64)

B: a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content:

Hide specific section in help profile

A. Go to http://www.imss.gob.mx/
B. Select "asistencia" (help) profile
C. The section on the bottom will disapear

Script:
$(".pane-v-imss-numeros").closest(".inside.panels-flexible-row-inside.panels-flexible-row-2-2-inside").hide();

תמונה מוטבעת 1

Summary - The entire process of creating such a script takes 15-60 minutes including testing.
Please let me know if that works for you.

Thank you,
Amihai

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:59 PM, lisa.seeman lisa.seeman@zoho.com wrote:
Hi

On Tuesday the WCAG group will debate a proposal for personlization for wcag 2.1. We will have a week and a half to get it though.

the proposal is:

For pages that contains interactive controls or content that is not core, one of the following is true:

a mechanism is available for personalization of content that removes non-core functionality and content, and enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls for core functionality, or
core functionality and content, and contextual information for essential functionality and content, is programmatically determined.

The proposal is at #6

Core is defined as:
the mimimum functionality and content that is needed for users to identify the topic and fulfill the purpose of the content

For example, core content is generally identified by the page title. Core functionality is that which is needed to fulfill the purpose described by the page title

contextual information is currently defined as :
semantics and tags that give meaning to the content such as context of elements; concept and role; relevance and information for simplification; position in a process

Supporting semantics is proposed at https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/

We need an example to show it as doable / useful including approximations how long it would take for authors to add the semantics.

Thanks for all your help
All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

--

Amihai Miron
CEO User1st

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

@chriscm2006

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chriscm2006

chriscm2006 Jul 1, 2017

When considering the software developmental implications of a Success Criterion like this, my thoughts are not, how does this demo that you created work? Or, how were 30 (or 1000) companies able to incorporate this open source project. My thought goes to, how is every website in the world going to do this, on every platform, for every device.

You have shown how thirty websites can implement this. How about a million?

You have a Chrome Extension. What about mobile?

I am browsing the Android Open Source Project Source Code (which includes the Chrome WebView implementation) and I can't find a reference to ANY Coga attributes. This does not bode well for general support for techniques around these properties on Android. I don't have the iOS source code, but I promise the support there is scant as well. This line of thinking leads me to the following two conclusions:

1: Push this out into a pre-mature ecosystem, allowing developers to come up with their own solutions on a website per website basis. Certainly some open source solutions for this would emerge as leaders, but across the broad spectrum of websites and devices there would be MANY MANY different approaches to this. From the point of view of a user, they would be unlikely to run into the same solution for this frequently in their day to day web browsing.

2: Hold off until the ecosystem matures, allow the Coga Specification to stabilize, perhaps consider UAAG guidelines around these thoughts, so that the Success Criterion leads developers to providing contextual information via coga attributes. Browsers then supply the actual customization automatically. Internally, this would be done via javascript injection, but it would be done so with a User Interface that is determined by the Browser, NOT independently, by every website in the world. The benefits of this approach from a user perspective are obvious and significant.

My concern is that, in conclusion 1, what have we really accomplished? Does a world of websites full of widely fractured personalization solutions really achieve the bigger goals of this Success Criterion? In the real world of millions of websites where EVERY site could potentially implement this differently, have we really helped users with cognitive disabilities or have we just required developers to do extra work for nothing?

In conclusion 2 we have embraced the power of a standard and used it to create a much better user experience. It just takes a little longer.

I, personally, would prefer the course of action that slowly leads to the ideal solution, over instant gratification with so many unanswered questions.

When considering the software developmental implications of a Success Criterion like this, my thoughts are not, how does this demo that you created work? Or, how were 30 (or 1000) companies able to incorporate this open source project. My thought goes to, how is every website in the world going to do this, on every platform, for every device.

You have shown how thirty websites can implement this. How about a million?

You have a Chrome Extension. What about mobile?

I am browsing the Android Open Source Project Source Code (which includes the Chrome WebView implementation) and I can't find a reference to ANY Coga attributes. This does not bode well for general support for techniques around these properties on Android. I don't have the iOS source code, but I promise the support there is scant as well. This line of thinking leads me to the following two conclusions:

1: Push this out into a pre-mature ecosystem, allowing developers to come up with their own solutions on a website per website basis. Certainly some open source solutions for this would emerge as leaders, but across the broad spectrum of websites and devices there would be MANY MANY different approaches to this. From the point of view of a user, they would be unlikely to run into the same solution for this frequently in their day to day web browsing.

2: Hold off until the ecosystem matures, allow the Coga Specification to stabilize, perhaps consider UAAG guidelines around these thoughts, so that the Success Criterion leads developers to providing contextual information via coga attributes. Browsers then supply the actual customization automatically. Internally, this would be done via javascript injection, but it would be done so with a User Interface that is determined by the Browser, NOT independently, by every website in the world. The benefits of this approach from a user perspective are obvious and significant.

My concern is that, in conclusion 1, what have we really accomplished? Does a world of websites full of widely fractured personalization solutions really achieve the bigger goals of this Success Criterion? In the real world of millions of websites where EVERY site could potentially implement this differently, have we really helped users with cognitive disabilities or have we just required developers to do extra work for nothing?

In conclusion 2 we have embraced the power of a standard and used it to create a much better user experience. It just takes a little longer.

I, personally, would prefer the course of action that slowly leads to the ideal solution, over instant gratification with so many unanswered questions.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 4, 2017

Contributor

@chriscm2006 Chris - you have joined the conversation late. We have addressed the issue of does it support all platfroms by giving an option to conform of the first bullet point. we have a chicken and egg situation here and we need some type of requirment

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 4, 2017

@chriscm2006 Chris - you have joined the conversation late. We have addressed the issue of does it support all platfroms by giving an option to conform of the first bullet point. we have a chicken and egg situation here and we need some type of requirment

@mbgower

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mbgower

mbgower Jul 4, 2017

Contributor

@lseeman, I don't think comments about joining "late" are pertinent. We should anticipate (and encourage) additional people getting engaged as more information is added to 2.1.

@chriscm2006 is providing a similar perspective to concerns that have been raised since January. I don't see the crux of his argument being invalidated by the prescriptive first bullet point.

By the way, the second bullet point ends with "is programmatically determined", which doesn't tie in with the information before it. I'm not sure if you mean that everything needs to be determinable or if this phrase is only referring to the interactive controls. Either way, it needs to be rewritten. Is this what you mean?

contextual information or context sensitive help is programmatically determinable and available for regions, form elements, main navigation elements and interactive controls

Contributor

mbgower commented Jul 4, 2017

@lseeman, I don't think comments about joining "late" are pertinent. We should anticipate (and encourage) additional people getting engaged as more information is added to 2.1.

@chriscm2006 is providing a similar perspective to concerns that have been raised since January. I don't see the crux of his argument being invalidated by the prescriptive first bullet point.

By the way, the second bullet point ends with "is programmatically determined", which doesn't tie in with the information before it. I'm not sure if you mean that everything needs to be determinable or if this phrase is only referring to the interactive controls. Either way, it needs to be rewritten. Is this what you mean?

contextual information or context sensitive help is programmatically determinable and available for regions, form elements, main navigation elements and interactive controls

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 5, 2017

Contributor

@mbgower we have tried to adress these issues with the new wording and it's itteerations on the list

The first bullet can gives a loop whole in some cases and can be more work then the second bullet in other cases - but it serves two purposes. Firstly it means there is no requirement to add more semantics. The last time this issue was discussed some members felt strongly that we can not expect people to add semantics reliably. So if you can not do it, you can copy and paist a script or have an alternative version. Secondly, every platform will support it. So overall, between the two bullet points it is possible for everyone to conform - even if it is easier to do so in html/xml based languages. Thirdly, even though we have found other supporting techniques, it is easier to do the second bullet point using the coga -semantics. However people are uncomfortable depending on it. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement. We are trying to be innovative how we can get something in here on this issue. I am happy to here other directions that address all the comments.

the current wording on the list is
For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
-contextual information is available for regions, common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls is programmatically determined.

We would then specify what is included in common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls in the definitions and make sure we have good supporting techniques for each one. I see the definition of common elements listing some of the values of coga-action, coga-field and coga-destination, so it should be very well defined what you need to include.

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 5, 2017

@mbgower we have tried to adress these issues with the new wording and it's itteerations on the list

The first bullet can gives a loop whole in some cases and can be more work then the second bullet in other cases - but it serves two purposes. Firstly it means there is no requirement to add more semantics. The last time this issue was discussed some members felt strongly that we can not expect people to add semantics reliably. So if you can not do it, you can copy and paist a script or have an alternative version. Secondly, every platform will support it. So overall, between the two bullet points it is possible for everyone to conform - even if it is easier to do so in html/xml based languages. Thirdly, even though we have found other supporting techniques, it is easier to do the second bullet point using the coga -semantics. However people are uncomfortable depending on it. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement. We are trying to be innovative how we can get something in here on this issue. I am happy to here other directions that address all the comments.

the current wording on the list is
For pages that contains interactive controls or with more then one regions, one of the following is true:

-a mechanism is available for personalization of content that enables the user to add symbols to interactive controls OR
-contextual information is available for regions, common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls is programmatically determined.

We would then specify what is included in common form elements, common navigation elements and common interactive controls in the definitions and make sure we have good supporting techniques for each one. I see the definition of common elements listing some of the values of coga-action, coga-field and coga-destination, so it should be very well defined what you need to include.

@chriscm2006

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@chriscm2006

chriscm2006 Jul 5, 2017

"We need some type of requirement." I would like you to consider rephrasing that: "We need to do something to help." Saying we "Need some type of requirement" precludes the possibility of an even better solution and assumes that this requirement will help and not hurt.

I read through the conversations above, my comments involve a unique point of view and additional concerns that were not addressed, particularly pertaining to the following statements:

If a user can identify and utilize the multitude (seriously, thousands) of personalization solutions that would appear as a result of bullet point 1, then such a user is not in the target group of users this Success Criterion is attempting to serve.

General support for bullet point 2 (contextual information through meta-data) is low enough, such that the inclusion of bullet point one guarantees that bullet point one will be the method programmers use to fulfill this success criterion an OVERWHELMING majority of the time.

This leads me to the following conclusion: Including this success criterion pre-maturely will not drive the industry toward the a solution that is going to serve the users needs. In fact, the inclusion of bullet point 1 ensures that this would NOT be the case.

"We need some type of requirement." I would like you to consider rephrasing that: "We need to do something to help." Saying we "Need some type of requirement" precludes the possibility of an even better solution and assumes that this requirement will help and not hurt.

I read through the conversations above, my comments involve a unique point of view and additional concerns that were not addressed, particularly pertaining to the following statements:

If a user can identify and utilize the multitude (seriously, thousands) of personalization solutions that would appear as a result of bullet point 1, then such a user is not in the target group of users this Success Criterion is attempting to serve.

General support for bullet point 2 (contextual information through meta-data) is low enough, such that the inclusion of bullet point one guarantees that bullet point one will be the method programmers use to fulfill this success criterion an OVERWHELMING majority of the time.

This leads me to the following conclusion: Including this success criterion pre-maturely will not drive the industry toward the a solution that is going to serve the users needs. In fact, the inclusion of bullet point 1 ensures that this would NOT be the case.

@alastc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alastc

alastc Jul 5, 2017

Contributor

We have a parallel conversation going on, I made some similar points here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/0011.html

However people are uncomfortable depending on it [the meta-data]. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

The problem is that without coga-personalisation, there is no agreed scope for either bullet. I.e. there is nothing to say which controls should have icons. That means there is no testability. You’d either have to specify them in the SC (a terrible idea) or have an external reference.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement.

I agree, I have the same goal in mind but I’m trying to steer towards an approach that has worked before in the WCAG/W3C context.

Starting with a core of the most useful meta-data which is the most straightforward to apply would be that first step.

Even with that approach, without some known external technology (user agent) to do something with the meta-data means it will be a struggle. (You didn’t answer that point.)

Contributor

alastc commented Jul 5, 2017

We have a parallel conversation going on, I made some similar points here:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/0011.html

However people are uncomfortable depending on it [the meta-data]. SO the first bullet point clarifies to everyone that there is no dependency on coga semantics to conform to the SC.

The problem is that without coga-personalisation, there is no agreed scope for either bullet. I.e. there is nothing to say which controls should have icons. That means there is no testability. You’d either have to specify them in the SC (a terrible idea) or have an external reference.

But in a summary, the point here is to get something in here, and build it up more in the supplement.

I agree, I have the same goal in mind but I’m trying to steer towards an approach that has worked before in the WCAG/W3C context.

Starting with a core of the most useful meta-data which is the most straightforward to apply would be that first step.

Even with that approach, without some known external technology (user agent) to do something with the meta-data means it will be a struggle. (You didn’t answer that point.)

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 11, 2017

Contributor

Hi, We have tried to address this in the new version. please let me know if it is now suffiently scoped

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 11, 2017

Hi, We have tried to address this in the new version. please let me know if it is now suffiently scoped

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 11, 2017

Contributor

ADDED NOTE: This link is an error (wrote while somone was asking me to find it in a call - see EA's answere bellow) @https://openassistive.github.io/OATSoft/2016/06/21/WWAACWebBrowser/ is a symbol browser\

using their concpt codes is a supporting technique

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 11, 2017

ADDED NOTE: This link is an error (wrote while somone was asking me to find it in a call - see EA's answere bellow) @https://openassistive.github.io/OATSoft/2016/06/21/WWAACWebBrowser/ is a symbol browser\

using their concpt codes is a supporting technique

@alastc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alastc

alastc Jul 11, 2017

Contributor

Ok, I think it helps to have consistency through it, I think we can cut down the verbosity though:

Common navigation elements, form elements and interactive controls can be personalised by:

  • a mechanism that enables the user to add symbols OR
  • contextual information that can be programmatically determined.

Also, I followed the link, it goes to a dating site (once you click through to download or for the browser itself).

Contributor

alastc commented Jul 11, 2017

Ok, I think it helps to have consistency through it, I think we can cut down the verbosity though:

Common navigation elements, form elements and interactive controls can be personalised by:

  • a mechanism that enables the user to add symbols OR
  • contextual information that can be programmatically determined.

Also, I followed the link, it goes to a dating site (once you click through to download or for the browser itself).

@eadraffan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eadraffan

eadraffan Jul 12, 2017

eadraffan commented Jul 12, 2017

@johnfoliot

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@johnfoliot

johnfoliot Jul 12, 2017

@eadraffan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@eadraffan

eadraffan Jul 13, 2017

Both in the case of WWAAC http://acecentre.org.uk/wwaac but now days it is possible to have a plug in that works with a text editor such as TinyMCE linked to a database of symbols so it works in the same way as a word processor, rather like language translation. See Widgit 'Insite' and the technology behind it - demo provides a separate edit box that creates the symbol supported sentence https://www.widgit.com/products/insite/tinymce/edit.php Widgit have 'Point' as well that allows symbols to appear with hover and kindly provide a technical support page. https://www.widgit.com/support/insite/index.htm

tinymce symbol plugin

eadraffan commented Jul 13, 2017

Both in the case of WWAAC http://acecentre.org.uk/wwaac but now days it is possible to have a plug in that works with a text editor such as TinyMCE linked to a database of symbols so it works in the same way as a word processor, rather like language translation. See Widgit 'Insite' and the technology behind it - demo provides a separate edit box that creates the symbol supported sentence https://www.widgit.com/products/insite/tinymce/edit.php Widgit have 'Point' as well that allows symbols to appear with hover and kindly provide a technical support page. https://www.widgit.com/support/insite/index.htm

tinymce symbol plugin

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 13, 2017

Contributor

Thanks EA.

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 13, 2017

Thanks EA.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 19, 2017

Contributor

another techneque from John http://microformats.org/wiki/h-event

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 19, 2017

another techneque from John http://microformats.org/wiki/h-event

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 20, 2017

Contributor

huge thread on wcag. with Chris John and myself and jan we have new wording.
In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of conventional controls can be consistently, programmatically determined across a set of web pages. (AA)

With new thread on wcag I am changing purpose to function, but we may yet need some more wordsmithing

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 20, 2017

huge thread on wcag. with Chris John and myself and jan we have new wording.
In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of conventional controls can be consistently, programmatically determined across a set of web pages. (AA)

With new thread on wcag I am changing purpose to function, but we may yet need some more wordsmithing

@mraccess77

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mraccess77

mraccess77 Jul 24, 2017

Contributor

Another thing I might add to this good list is the default button. Sometimes it’s not clear what the default button is in a form. Often the default button will be triggered by pressing enter – but knowing the default button could also be helpful for people who want to accept the default choice because they are not sure. This might go beyond buttons to other choices as well.

Contributor

mraccess77 commented Jul 24, 2017

Another thing I might add to this good list is the default button. Sometimes it’s not clear what the default button is in a form. Often the default button will be triggered by pressing enter – but knowing the default button could also be helpful for people who want to accept the default choice because they are not sure. This might go beyond buttons to other choices as well.

@lseeman

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@lseeman

lseeman Jul 24, 2017

Contributor

Also we need to harmonize with https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#attr-fe-autocomplete and aria epub module.
Both can be ways to conform

Contributor

lseeman commented Jul 24, 2017

Also we need to harmonize with https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/forms.html#attr-fe-autocomplete and aria epub module.
Both can be ways to conform

@mgifford

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mgifford

mgifford Sep 4, 2017

@lseeman there are broken links in the initial comment description. Can you fix the 404's?

mgifford commented Sep 4, 2017

@lseeman there are broken links in the initial comment description. Can you fix the 404's?

@KristinaEngland

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@KristinaEngland

KristinaEngland Sep 15, 2017

I'm also trying to get to the comment description links, @lseeman. I'm new to submitting comments. Do we need to create a new issue for recommended changes to the September 12 draft or is it fine to add them here?

KristinaEngland commented Sep 15, 2017

I'm also trying to get to the comment description links, @lseeman. I'm new to submitting comments. Do we need to create a new issue for recommended changes to the September 12 draft or is it fine to add them here?

@awkawk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@awkawk

awkawk Sep 18, 2017

Member

@KristinaEngland Please create a new issue for comments on the September 12 draft.

Member

awkawk commented Sep 18, 2017

@KristinaEngland Please create a new issue for comments on the September 12 draft.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.