Re: Alastair, Jan, Jason , myself and John have an updated version of

​> I suggest the name of it is “Purpose of controls” or something similar,

"purpose" or "function" both confuse me a bit, because sometimes the
purpose requires instruction and explanation.

Perhaps
"Conventional Controls"​
Which is what it's about. Use conventional names for conventional controls,
or programmatically provide a common name.


>In content implemented using markup languages, the conventional name of
conventional user interface components can be programmatically determined.
(AA)

The other thing to iron out with this is ensure that there is not a mixup
between "conventional name" as this intends it, and "ACCNAME" which is one
way to achieve it.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:10 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> > For the form inputs is there any reason we can't just use the html5
> autocomplete to meet this?
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/form-control-
> infrastructure.html#autofill
>
> That’s a good point, I think there’s a two-way process here:
>
>    1. Compare the lists and update the “conventional controls definition”
>    where it makes sense.
>    I assume the HTML5 list has gone through more vetting for things like
>    internationalisation so aligning with that makes sense.
>
>    2. Include a technique where that attribute can be used for fulfilling
>    this SC for form fields.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>