Comment on SC 2.4.12 Accessible Name

[KerstinProbiesch]

This term is critical when we think about translations of WCAG 2.1. I'm sure this will cause discussions in minimum for the german translation. While "accessible" seems to be more clear in english in german we could use "zugänglich" for "accessible" or "barrierefrei" for "accessible". Each can have not only it's own connotation(s) but can be something very different. Therefore instead of "accessible name" a term should be used which is more specifically.

[steverep]

Hi @KerstinP. The use of "accessible name" is also brought up in issue #371. In this context, the argument is to simply use "name" as is already defined in WCAG 2.0 and used in Name, Role, Value (4.1.2). Would the proposal there close this issue?

PS - Since "accessible name" and "accessible description" are used commonly when talking about accessibility APIs, how is it translated in German when referenced there?

[johnfoliot]

To add to Steve's comment, "Accessible Name" is actually a specific term-of-art, and is used in all of the Accessibility APIs (per platform), and routinely referenced in technical discussions about platform accessibility, ARIA, etc. The term has already been defined in the ARIA specification at: https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-aam-1.1/#dfn-accessible-name

With regard to translations/internationalization, I'm not sure what the normal convention is for specific technical terms and expressions, but I suspect that when translating the name, it would be parenthetical, perhaps something like:

Accessible Name (zugänglich geben)

...or something similar (sorry, I am using google translate for illustrative purposes, so I may have just mangled that, but hopefully you get the idea) - the point being it is a formal technical term, and so any translation is unofficial, and for clarity use only.

Hope this helps.

[KerstinProbiesch]

@steverep

Thanks for pointing me to Issue 371. I'm very much in favor for syncing with existing WCAG terminology in general.

@steverep @johnfoliot

I'm not a professional translator so I don't know what the conventions for specific technical terms are. I would think that translation processes are in general easier when it is clear that a phrase is a specific technical term.

Beside translations: Not all people are following all (technical) Working Drafts. Plus: The target group of WCAG is much more diverse than the target group of specific technical standards. Developers who are familiar with (all) technical standards of W3C might or will know that "accessible name" is a specific term even when there is no (visual) indicator like italic or quotation marks or whatever. Does this not bear the risk of tacit knowledge?

Probably the following will do: "Name (Accessible Name)" + using italic or quotation marks or whatever for "accessible name" in the glossary entry + improving the glossary entry in a way that it is not necessary reading other technical standards to know what "Accessible Name" is about. In general I think everything should be done that WCAG 2.1 can be used as a sole standard.

[DavidMacDonald]

This was my feeling also
#371 (comment)

Name (Accessible Name)
Defintion...

[johnfoliot]

Hi Kersten, This is an interesting question/problem, and a point well taken. I will propose to our Working Group that we have a discussion with the Internationalization team at the W3C to get you a more definitive answer, as there is likely already a protocol at the W3C for issues such as this. I did a little bit of digging, and note the following: There is an official German translation of WCAG 2.0, but WCAG 2.0 really doesn't appear to have a technical term like this in use that I can see. But specifically I was also interested in how the W3C has dealt with "Accessible Name" when being translated. While there doesn't appear to be a German translation of the ARIA Recommendation (where that term is defined), there *IS* an Official Hungarian translation (http://w3c.hu/forditasok/WAI-ARIA/), as well as an Official Japanese translation (https://momdo.github.io/wai-aria/index.html) and looking through that, it does appear that when W3C refers to technical terms in their translations, it takes the pattern of: [technical term in English *translated term* (explanation in native language as required)] as seen in this example: Official English: alert (role) (source: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/roles#alert) Official Hungarian: alert *riasztás* (szerep) (source: http://w3c.hu/forditasok/WAI-ARIA/#alert) Official Japanese: alert （ロール）(source: https://momdo.github.io/wai-aria/roles.html#alert) As such, my initial guess is that we'll see a similar pattern like this for translations of new Success Criteria (and/or Glossary Terms) in WCAG 2.1. I hope this helps. JF

…

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:09 AM, David MacDonald ***@***.***> wrote: This was my feeling also #371 (comment) <#371 (comment)> Name (Accessible Name) Defintion... — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#419 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABK-czv986llJATL4351fn1Efr2JbRmYks5spjSigaJpZM4PuzrK> .

-- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

[awkawk]

@KerstinP The WG has changed the text of the SC to not include the term. Please see the latest version at: http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#label-in-name