W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > April 2015

Re: ARIA Docs Need Disambiguation [Was: request: move ARIA in HTML to auto publishing]

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 07:34:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+VkLb8h+y_R5K4XqgLNHWKiFzcaCg=jiwxAqOeLsbWVPPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "W3C WAI Protocols & Formats" <public-pfwg@w3.org>
On 28 April 2015 at 00:21, janina@rednote.net <janina@rednote.net> wrote:

> I suggest this doesn't cleanly disambiguate between the two because our
> (inherited)  short name for the
> second ("Notes") document is now also the same as the full name of the
> first. I think this will continue to confuse.
>
> The first document title has:           ARIA in HTML"
> The second document short name URI has: aria-in-html
>

I am unsure whether the short names can be changed and suggest this would
create more problems than it solves, the main potential point of confusion
is/was the use of the phrase 'ARIA in HTML' in both doc titles, but I think
that

Notes on Using ARIA in HTML

and

ARIA in HTML

are sufficiently different, the use of the phrase "Notes on Using" makes it
clear (in my mind) that the doc is informative.

I am not overly keen on bikeshedding names, but if anybody has some
alternative names to offer please do.


>
> Can we look at these, and perhaps also the other relevant HTML/ARIA
> documents (such as the HTML-AAM) to clear up potential vectors of
> confusion as best we can before another heartbeat?
>

is there any confusion with other docs?


>
> I'm aware this would require another round of CfC, but might it not be
> worthwhile?
>
> Thoughts??
>



--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 06:35:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 28 April 2015 06:35:36 UTC