Re: Should we replace the term "common name" with "common concept" or handle it in techniques

Hi Lisa,

I think Common Concept would work (FWIW).

My current concern is that the AA SC (as opposed to its companion AAA SC)
does not have the mandate for a machine-readable, taxonomic entry (which is
why/how a technique such as using @title would work for the new AA SC). In
other words, it is a list, but not a list of 'pairs' (term/definition) at
AA - that the definition half could be provided as prose.

As I have previously suggested, the AA requirement is that we provide
additional contextual information to a fixed list of these common concept
controls/inputs (somehow), but without *MANDATING* a taxonomic "look-up"
table that would be required at the AAA level.

JF

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:16 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> Hi Folks
>
> In issue 6 (support personlization). Should we replace the term "common
> name" with "common concept"? That would address Kathies concern in the
> survey that we should provide more than just English common word set.
> Alternatively we could just build techniques that shows people how to say
> one word is a type or form of another word in a machine understandable way
> (such as  using owl /rdf).
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion