W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:41:20 +0000
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <96e35361-1985-0d24-3fe0-2f2dc593f6d2@splintered.co.uk>
On 16/01/2018 15:31, David MacDonald wrote:
>> It was dropped a while ago due to internationalisation issues, 
> I agree languages other than English would be precarious. However, if an 
> English author wants to use the appropriate "purpose" as the label, I 
> don't think they should be punished by also having to add redundant 
> metadata.

It's not "redundant". It needs to be part of a restricted set of 
machine-readable tokens to be...well...machine-readable. Otherwise, you 
enter the realm of heuristics again (where hypothetical tools that 
hypothetically do something useful based on a control/element's purpose 
need to guess what the purpose is based on natural language processing 
or similar).

>  >it would limit the terms that people could use in labels, which was 
> not acceptable.
> No, it would cause them to have to add metadata to provide that proper 
> "purpose" term.

Alastair is right: authors would need to carefully craft their 
labels/accnames to make sure they trigger the right heuristics (and then 
that would require testing in all sorts of user agents, to make sure 
their natural language processing reacts consistently).

> I think the AT should be able to figure this out...

How? Machine learning?

Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:41:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:21 UTC