Naming: Popover vs Non-modal dialog

[SiTaggart]

I would prefer it if we named our components based on the accessible name of the control, based on the W3C WAI-ARIA specification.

There are a number of benefits to this including shared terminology between engineering and design, education around accessible concepts and improving decision making when choosing a UI control to perform a specific task based on what it can accessibly communicate to a user.

So that leads to me Popover. It's a name that most folks are reasonably comfortable with but it technically doesn't mean anything, but at the same time depending on who you talk to, it can mean many different things.

I would like us to replace the term Popover in our nomenclatures with non-modal dialog going forward. Namely for the following reasons:

• it maps 1 to 1 to international accessibility specifications
• it explicitly describes what the component can and can't do based on the international specification.
• When sharing a conversation between PM, Design and Engineering, googling the term for further clarification will always result in the same, share understanding.

[aayushpi]

It's not a very approachable name. Having a simple name really helps.

I propose using Popover and explicitly calling out that its how we refer to a non-modal dialog.

[serifluous]

+1

[richbachman]

As much as I'm on board with naming components based on the aria spec, I feel like this one comes with a long history of being called a popover by both engineers and designers. Even design systems we look up to reference it as a popover, e.g. Chakra, Sancho, and Reakit.

I like the idea of calling out that we refer to it as a non-modal dialog. That way we can educate our users on proper terminology.

[corinne-nagel]

Hey all, it looks like popover is the consensus to help keep it approachable/simple but calling it out somewhere that we also refer to it as a non-modal dialog. I'm going to consider this answered unless anybody has any hesitations still. Thanks!