Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

David,

You are missing an important aspect here: name does not equal purpose. The
overarching goal is to apply a common taxonomical term to the element, not
simply to give it an ACCNAME that frankly is only supported by
accessibility API-aware tools, and subject to i18n variances that would
make machine transformations impossible, because the ACCNAME is a random
string of text. Not all AT fits that category.

Additionally, there is no "magic" mapping table and I don't know where you
came up with that notion, although earlier we had WCAG "handles" (Section
7) that included a commonly understood definition that other actual
taxonomies could map to, but to remain tech agnostic we didn't specify a
sigle taxonomy (although I had also mapped it back to Schema.org's
vocabulary for illustrative purposes.)

In that instance however  our 'handles' were less critical then the
definitions, as it was the definitions that needed to be mapped to an
existing ontology, and not the actual terms.

So, for example  "ACCNAMES" like Poppa, Gramps, Opah, and Grandfather all
map to the same "commonly understood" purpose of male grand parent.

Make more sense?

JF

On Jan 16, 2018 10:43 AM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> > So you would call the last name “family-name”, the credit card number
> “cc-number”?
>
> No, I'm saying that the magical mapping documents will map it.
>
> > Even if it is a standard name for each purpose rather than the token,
> it would mean you can’t use “Your name” as the label for a field, you’d
> have to use “Name”, even if there were three different fields asking for
> different people.
>
> No, I'm saying that the magical mapping documents will map it.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:37 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com
> > wrote:
>
>> *> *> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> So you would call the last name “family-name”, the credit card number
>> “cc-number”?
>>
>>
>>
>> If you mix tokens and labels you really make it difficult to make
>> understandable labels.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even if it is a standard name for each purpose rather than the token, it
>> would mean you can’t use “Your name” as the label for a field, you’d have
>> to use “Name”, even if there were three different fields asking for
>> different people.
>>
>>
>>
>> Once we started going through the items, it wasn’t practical to simply
>> use those as the AccName.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>
>