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

Hi Lisa,

You will run head-long into internationalization issues with that approach.
Instead, what I suggest is that for the list of common [term we decide on],
that at the AA level the author needs to do something to provide additional
contextual information, but only at the AAA do they need to use a fixed
taxonomy to achieve 'success'. Hopefullyt the following illustrates this
better:

Common Concept Technique(s) for AA Technique(s) for AAA

Name (using @title) <input type="text" title="ספק את שמך הפרטי"> (Hebrew
Example)       {{insufficient}}
  (using Microformats) <input type="text" class="fname">       sufficient
  (using COGA Semantics) <input type="text" coga-field="name">
sufficient
​JF​




On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

> How about requiring the common concept or the common name - would that
> address this concern?
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:30:27 +0300 *John
> Foliot<john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>>* wrote ----
>
> 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
>
>
>
>


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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion