W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-aria@w3.org > March 2016

Re: ACTION-1569: Create a section that describes AAPI differences

From: <jason@accessibleculture.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:25:42 +1300
Cc: Accessible Rich Internet Applications Working Group <public-aria@w3.org>, "wai-xtech@w3.org" <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <F7D4A142-F207-41F7-A30B-8421BF412AA2@accessibleculture.org>
To: Joseph Scheuhammer <clown@alum.mit.edu>
Hi,

>> That said, I’m not absolutely opposed, and would only suggest, if we are going to allow “accessible” to mean “accessible object”, that this be somehow clarified in any spec that uses it that way. Including it in the glossary might be an option, but then some instances of the word “accessible” would link to the glossary entry while others wouldn’t. Or maybe the usage could be indicated in the prose the first time it is used like that, e.g. “Accessibility APIs include a tree of accessible objects, often referred to as accessibles, and information about each one:…”
> 
> We discussed this at last week's AAPI meeting, and we are in agreement with the change to "accessible object(s)".  We have a request, though:  could you make that editorial change as part of your pull request (https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/279)?  That is, replace all occurrences of "accessible" with "accessible object". I'm not sure, but that should be straight forward.  If it isn't, and you'd rather I do it, let me know.

This is done now and PR issued: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/289

Actually pretty straightforward. Found only two relevant instances of “accessible” to replace. 

Will leave you to merge. I don’t think I should've merged the previous PR #279 either as I’m not editor for CORE. Apologies to any toes.


jason kiss
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 02:26:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:58:22 UTC