Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

To try to address Detlev's concern of the cognitive load of the SC:

The purpose of common interface components can be programmatically
determined if the following are true:

   - The content is implemented using technologies that support identifying
   the expected purpose for interface components
   - The Interface component has a purpose that maps to the [link]list of
   common interface



Nothing in the meaning has changed... I just put the conditions at the end
in bullets to make it easier.

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 5:18 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> ​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 <(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 5:15 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.
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>