RE: Proposal for support personlization AA from John, Chris, Jan and myself

From: Alastair Campbell []
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 6:08 PM

“Purpose of controls: In content implemented using mark-up languages, the conventional name of common controls can be programmatically determined.”


  *   Common controls is essentially Lisa’s list.
  *   Conventional name, a name for the common control available in a public vocabulary (or taxonomy if you prefer).

I’m not wedded to the term “conventional name”, but I think the concept has legs.
[Jason] I think it does, too. This is a clearer statement of what I originally thought the proposal advanced earlier this week was intended to achieve.
Would the “conventional name” be a localized string? “Accessible name” certainly is, but it’s intended ultimately for human consumption, whereas “conventional name” (if I understand your proposal correctly) is not – or, at least, it’s meant to be both human readable and unambiguously identifiable in software. I think you would have to place constraints on the public vocabulary (e.g., used by AT to enhance accessibility). Otherwise, this version of the proposal runs the risk of requiring authors to add metadata that will never, in fact, solve anybody’s accessibility issues.


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Friday, 21 July 2017 13:04:33 UTC