+1 for @steverep

As for the label this is indeed not necessary to mention “visible” as this is implicit

For “name” though I see the point of staying close to 4.1.2 but the term “accessible name” covers the meaning much better, clearer to explain and understand and is also how it’s mentioned from the AAM documents: https://www.w3.org/TR/accname-aam-1.1/#dfn-accessible-name and also mentioned in ARIA as Accessible Name: https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#dfn-accessible-name

Of course as we’re not changing 2.0 there’s a mismatch between these documents…

I agree with @steverep in principle - using control is better than user interface component - (unless sometimes a user interface component is somehow NOT a control)..

I realise I may need to get out more...

Note. I think the preference for 'Accessible Name' over 'name' comes from a11y geeks who do DOM, A11y tree inspection. It's an interesting discussion as to whether its better to use one term over another. I do see an advantage to calling out the 'Accessible Name' as it implies that this is explicitly loaded in the DOM or A11y Tree.

@joshueoconnor, I think the discussion of user interface component vs. control and name vs. accessible name is a separate one. The main point here is that we need to be consistent from one SC to the next, and WCAG 2.0 already adopts the convention of using "user interface component" and "name", although I'll admit I'm much more concerned with the latter since we've got two definition for the same thing.

We could change the definition just a bit by mentioning they are the same thing, like: name (a.k.a. accessible name). This way we can keep the 2.0 version and also clear up the air for the other one.

PR for this #377

I'd like to explore another possible way to reconcile the two. My reason for this is that "Accessible Name" is now the most common term used in industry, rather than "name"

Within our charter, I think we can do the following, simply add the word (accessible name) after the term in the definition. Perhaps Michael can confirm this.

name (accessible name)
text by which software can identify a component within Web content to the user
...

I think it could keep the new SC easier to understand which has value. It seems to lose understandability to those not on our inner circles with just "name".

This has been resolved by the merge of #377