Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:27:02 -0500
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Cc: public-pfwg-comments@w3.org, public-pfwg-comments-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF524E5834.B01136FF-ON8625749F.004E152C-8625749F.0054DF4E@us.ibm.com>
Doug, Mashups call these widgets as well. UI Controls are not broad enough. Widget to me is short and concise. Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger Distinguished Engineer, SWG Accessibility Architect/Strategist Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/schwer Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org> Sent by: To public-pfwg-comme public-pfwg-comments@w3.org nts-request@w3.or cc g Subject Comment on WAI-ARIA Role: "Widget" 08/08/08 01:12 AM is Overloaded Term Hi, PF WG- I think that you should reconsider using the term "widget" in the ARIA specification. It's always been a rather ambiguous and overloaded term [1], and the primary usage seems now to have shifted from "UI control" to "simple Web application" (cf. the WebApps WG's Widgets spec, and various widget frameworks by various Web companies). I think that going forward, this will be a point of confusion for people, where the use of a different term may disambiguate what your particular usage is. May I suggest using a term similar to "UI control", "interface control", "UI element", or "interface component" instead? [1] http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Widget Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, WebApps, SVG, and CDF
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)
(image/gif attachment: pic07594.gif)
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)