Re: definition for publicly available vocabulary and regions

Hi Andrew

The scope here is all symbols, not just controls. Also the "common controls" SC is limited to the common ones identified in the list.

I sent a definition of regions yesterday. I meant the things that would be identified by landmark roles, such as complementary call out boxes. 

Will try and answer the rest later...

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter

---- On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 18:07:03 +0200 Andrew Kirkpatrick<> wrote ---- 

      Thanks Lisa. More questions to follow up…
  Firstly symbols are not included.  We would like to enable interoperable symbol set codes for Non verbal people. Products for people who are non vocal often use symbols to help users communicate. These symbols are in fact peoples language. 
 Are you talking about symbols for user interface components or symbols that are non-interactive content? Or both?
 Unfortunately many of these symbols are both subject to copy write AND not interoperable. That means end-users can only use one device, and can not use apps or AT from a different company. There are open set of symbol codes for these symbol sets, that could be referenced then they can be interoperable. alternatively wordnet nodes could be referenced. If the users symbols are mapped to the same nodes then users agents will be able to load the user understandable symbol. That means the end use could buy the symbols and use them across different devices or applications. They would still be proprietary but they would also be interoperable. ( Menkap allow you to add symbols) 
 So if I’m understanding correctly, a site that is properly marked up would allow a user’s specific set of symbols to be substituted in for existing text or image-based information. Is that right?
 If that is right, that seems like the same thing as we are doing in Identify Common Purpose, but I’m not sure if it is for non-interactive content as well as UI Components.
  Assuming that it is for content as well, are there any good examples of sites that do this well?
  Also not all controls are common and do not require identifying the purpose of regions.
 I’m not following what you mean for the purpose of regions here.
 ---- On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:57:45 +0200 Andrew Kirkpatrick<> wrote ---- 
 Given the evolution of the “identify common purpose” (ICP) SC I find myself struggling to understand the differences between that SC and the “contextual information” SC.
 1.3.4 currently: In content implemented using markup languages, for each user interface component that serves a purpose identified in the Common Purposes for User Interface Components section, that purpose can be programmatically determined.
 1.3.5 currently: In content implemented using markup languages, contextual information for controls, symbols, and regions can be programmatically determined using a publicly available vocabulary.
 Contextual Information definition proposed: Information which clarifies the meaning of an object, the purpose of an object and the object’s relationship with other objects and processes, including identifying the position in a multi step process such as may be identified as breadcrumbs.    
 “ICP” is asking that certain purposes are programmatically determinable, based on a small list of purposes provided.
 Contextual Information is asking for the same information and more, on a set of page content that includes UI Components but also includes symbols and regions, and also requires a publicly available vocabulary is used.  Is that right?
 Right off the bat I know that we need to be replacing “controls” with “User Interface Components” because we did so with ICP.
 Do we have a sample page (e.g. hosted somewhere that shows what would actually need to be done to meet this? I think that would help a lot to understand this SC and the impact of it on authors.
  Andrew Kirkpatrick
  Group Product Manager, Accessibility

  From: "" <>
 Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 16:01
 To: WCAG <>
 Subject: definition for publicly available vocabulary and regions
 Resent-From: WCAG <>
 Resent-Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 15:57
 contextual information

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2017 18:31:30 UTC