Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

​Jake to address your concern, ​l
et's go back to "interface component" as in the current wording rather than
"element"

“In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying the
expected meaning for interface components, for each element that has a
purpose that maps to any of the [link]list of common interface components,
the meaning of the element can be programmatically determined.”



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

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 Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:15 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> HI Jake
>
> Your wording "common input fields" doesn't solve your most recent concern
> about wanting to make the normative text all for more than input fields...
> so the SC can expand in future versions.
>
> My concern with "types" is that  it will be confused with input types
> <input type="text" ...>
>
> 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 Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:01 AM, Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> @Alastair, in opposition to previous suggested text I see you're using
>> "elements" where I used "types".
>> Focusing on "elements" I'm wondering if we want the purpose of an
>> "element" to be known or do we want to hinge more to "types" which was part
>> of previous suggestions (more neutral also maybe?!)
>>
>> For reference here the two different ones:
>>
>> - “In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying
>> the expected meaning for elements, for each element that has a purpose that
>> maps to any of the [link]list of common input fields,  the meaning of the
>> element can be programmatically determined.”
>>
>> - “For the list of common input fields that are supported by the
>> technology for specifying the purpose of specific types, the purpose can be
>> programmatically determined.”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Abma, J.D. (Jake)
>> Sent: woensdag 17 januari 2018 10:51
>> To: 'Alastair Campbell' <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <
>> akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> Subject: RE: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues
>>
>> “In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying
>> the expected meaning for elements, for each element that has a purpose that
>> maps to any of the [link]list of common input fields,  the meaning of the
>> element can be programmatically determined.”
>>
>> +1 looks identical to my recently suggested text :-)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
>> Sent: woensdag 17 januari 2018 10:45
>> To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <
>> akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues
>>
>> Jake wrote:
>> > I see a limitation in “for each user-specific input field” if we want
>> to expand this SC to also apply to NON user-specific input fields (or even
>> links / buttons)
>>
>> If we have the list in WCAG, we can use the line at the top of the
>> appendix (there now) to indicate the user-aspect, we can remove it from the
>> SC text.
>>
>>
>> David wrote:
>> > ​Now if  we  ​want to address Jake's issue we could go with a variation
>> of his text
>> >
>> > “In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying
>> the expected meaning for elements, for each user-specific element that has
>> a purpose that maps to any of the [link]list of common input fields,  the
>> meaning of the element can be programmatically determined.”
>>
>> I’d be happy with that, and combing those points would leave:
>>
>> “In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying
>> the expected meaning for elements, for each element that has a purpose that
>> maps to any of the [link]list of common input fields,  the meaning of the
>> element can be programmatically determined.”
>> (Removing user-specific)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ATTENTION:
>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the
>> intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or
>> disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message
>> immediately.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> ATTENTION:
>> The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the
>> intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or
>> disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message
>> immediately.
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>