Re: working on the definitions for support personliazion

That's my understanding Alastair...

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 31, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> That seems to be a reversal of what we agreed on the call, did you see my
> summary before?
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/0400.html
>
>
>
> “The solution was to move a core set of terms into WCAG, and allow for
> meeting it with the accessible name.
>
>
>
> I.e. if your link to home is called the agreed term “home”, that fulfils
> the SC. If it is called something else, you can use just about any
> attribute to provide that name (pref-destination, title etc.)”
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 28 July 2017 at 16:26
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: working on the definitions for support personliazion
>
>
>
> Hey Alastair,
>
>
>
> As I am off-site at our company all-hands, I can't apply my full thought
> to this at this time (I need to stay focused on what's happening here in
> real-time).
>
>
>
> However as a general statement, at the AA level I don't think introducing
> *new* semantic constructs should be part of the SC activity. Instead the
> suggestion is that we essentially mandate the use of existing semantic
> constructs (which at it's weakest could be expressed as <[element]"
> title="this is what you need to do">) to deliver the partial solution of
> the larger need/desire that would be addressed in the AAA SC.
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Lisa / COGA TF came forward with a list of 75 (now apparently whittled
> down to 35 (?) - apologies as I am off-site this week) of key controls and
> inputs that would be applicable in this SC.
>
>
>
> I think the HTML list Lisa was comparing against was just for form inputs,
> so that doesn’t cover the nav or button controls that are also in the
> definition.
>
>
>
> > I do however agree that posting the list of those key controls/inputs
> MUST be included in the SC as a normative part of the SC, so that we have a
> 'list' to measure success/failure against.
>
>
>
> Sorry for misquoting, but that is the bit I was getting at.
>
>
>
> Would it be ok to have that as name/value pairs?
>
> E.g. Prefix or title (‘honorific-prefix’).
>
>
>
> Where the ‘name’ is what’s in the current definition, and the token in
> brackets is copied in from the HTML spec when possible, or created for this
> purpose for the others.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Foliot
>
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>
> Deque Systems Inc.
>
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>