Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

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 | |
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:41:44 UTC