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

How about requiring the common concept or the common name - would that address this concern?

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Thu, 10 Aug 2017 16:30:27 +0300 John Foliot<> 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.


On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 1:16 AM, lisa.seeman <> 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, Twitter

John Foliot

Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems Inc.

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion


Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 14:59:15 UTC