Re: Confusion with spec name for "Accessible Name Computation"

Except it's not really a text alternative. I'd say that the text alternative for an input element would be its value.

All of these proposals have more disadvantages to me than the current name. Unless someone can come up with a compelling reason to change to something which doesn't have these issues I would prefer to keep the current name. 

Regards,
James. 

> On May 12, 2016, at 18:11, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Ifd prefer gText Alternative Computation.h I find gAccessible Label Computationh even more confusing that gAccessible Name Computationh since it has inputs that are <label> aria-label, aria-labelledby, and also inputs that are not labels at all. It has 2 outputs, and description is not a label at all. Text Alternative is accurate, and not taken by anything else.
>  
> From: Rich Schwerdtfeger [mailto:richschwer@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 12:57 PM
> To: James Craig <jcraig@apple.com>
> Cc: ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Confusion with spec name for "Accessible Name Computation"
>  
> We can discuss. This impact the SVG AAM as well. On Windows systems name is the appropriate term and it was first introduced in 1995. I would need to reeducate a lot of people at IBM too. 
>  
> Can you give us a link to where you found the concerns?
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Rich
>  
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>  
>  
> 
>  
> On May 12, 2016, at 2:31 PM, James Craig <jcraig@apple.com> wrote:
>  
> 
> I've heard some confusion recently that the spec name for "Accessible Name Computation" does not match the property usage ("aria-label", "aria-labelledby", HTML <label>, etc.) The concern is that "name" means different things in some accessibility APIs and @name means something else entirely in HTML.
> 
> Will you consider changing the spec title to one of the following:
> 
> - "Accessible Label Computation" 
> - "Text Alternative Computation"
> 
> Or another spec title that doesn't have associated baggage of "Name."
> 
> Thanks,
> James Craig
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 02:10:19 UTC