- From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 11:38:41 +0000
- To: 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, "Marc Johlic" <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7cdbef1e7eec42a2be33ec3758f00e28@SU8000007192.ad.ing.net>
My suggestion for "Support Common Input Fields":
“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.”
Note: It is not expected that every technology supports the same list. Content implemented using a technology that supports a subset are excepted for fields that are not supported while a technology that supports a superset are encouraged to implement additional meanings.
My conclusion for "Support Common Input Fields":
1.
· Preferably SC are technology agnostic AND date agnostic so they can stand the ravages of time.
· Some people have problems with this approach for 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 and would like to improve on this although the two SC did a pretty good job over the last 10 years.
· Improvements could be done by specifying à specific list in à specific place.
2.
· Scoping down on "all common input fields" to "user related and already supported" ones (autofill) seems the best option for now to start with and is defendable.
· When making the decision to go for à list, also make the decision to supply it ourselves and stay in control.
· Based on and referencing HTML 5.2 is fine but not in the normative text.
· Expanding the list in future versions (also NOT user related ones) is how this SC can grow.
· Referencing and updating other specs / technologies (HTML5.2, 5.3... etc) from within Understanding and Techniques.
3.
· Excepting specified but not supported fields from a specific spec / technology from within a Note.
· Conformance is at a particular date, so it’s the standard at that time.
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 22:02
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
Cc: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
For Jake's version... I think we need the reference to the list
For Josh's version I think we need something like "corresponding to the user..." although there might be a better way to say it. I don't think its obvious in the SC without it and it scopes the requirements to only things in the list that are *about the user*... rather than about other fields... for instance they might have a form to put in the information about 3rd parties... which would be required without that line.
The understanding doc cannot add additional limitations or requirements to the SC and unless its required in the SC text, we can't add it there.
Cheers,
David MacDonald
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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 Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 3:46 PM, Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>> wrote:
A shot in the dark from a non-native based on 4.1.2…:
“For all form input fields corresponding to the user that are supported by the technology for specifying the purpose of specific types, the purpose can be programmatically determined.”
From: White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:20
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
I think efforts to insist on a fixed and normative list of terms or concepts stated in the WCAG specification would move us away from the notion of technology-independent guidelines that are designed to apply to changing technical capabilities over time, as exemplified by 1.3.1 and 4.1.2. I’m not supportive of this direction of development for WCAG.
From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) [mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:15 PM
To: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
I see and get your point, doesn’t make it more easy… ☺ but this is also the same for 4.1.2 as mentioned before where we judge new components on new roles, states and values when they become conventional.
Or do we have another case with 4.1.2 except that we would like a fixed minimum list to start with?
(mind blowing..)
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:08
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
So the way to make it more stable is to allow the set of terms to change in technologies that change even faster than our spec does? I’m not following the reasoning…
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7C32df36e31d2845dc5d4e08d559f9192c%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513848791103419&sdata=DX%2BFa0plJO%2B855uaQdomUJN%2FLuRvTgyta3e0jNznkhw%3D&reserved=0>
From: "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 15:01
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
That could be true but I think we would like our SC as stable as possible and not change with every new release!
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:00
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
Don’t forget that like HTML we are planning to update WCAG more regularly also.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cdf107cfb7b3b4e1453e508d559f75421%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513841194260566&sdata=X%2BtKbJHvJQ5hp58ajm%2BV1kRnBx%2FRoz38vHFWTS5ZGWU%3D&reserved=0>
From: "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl<mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 14:57
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
Looking at it from a bit more distance I just have a gut feeling we do need a fixed minimum list, I guess most of us agree.
But also it feels not right to point to HTML 5.2 although it is the best choice for this moment because it may be this moment only.
Referring to old/outdated specs (5.2 will become outdated) are weakening this SC day by day while we would like it to strengthen in time.
Can’t we add something like “the latest version of the HTML spec at the time of building / testing”.
This way you’ll judge it in the moment of time and this will create growth possibilities.
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 20:14
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
Hi Jason,
I think I will have to agree to disagree. One way of avoiding this new SC altogether could be to state that your conformance claim is based on HTML 4.1 and thus "not supported". We need a fixed normative minimum list, and whether we point to the list in HTML 5.2, or include that list directly in our Recommendation I still maintain that without the fixed and stable list, it will be very difficult to test and make assertions toward. As Alex Li noted on the call the other day, testers will also need to know when to 'stop' testing (i.e. when they reach the end of the list), and that list cannot be changing over time.
JF
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:05 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
You can handle the conformance by specifying HTML 5.1, (substituting the appropriate version) in the “list of Web content technologies relied upon” in any conformance claim. Using HTML in a “living standard” way doesn’t require you to omit a version number – or, for that matter, a range of version numbers – from any assertion of conformance as of a given date.
Thus, I think that without an explicit list of form fields, a success criterion along the lines that I wrote in response to Andrew’s proposal for 1.3.4 remains reliably testable.
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
> AWK: If I use HTML in a “living standard” way today and include all of the appropriate meanings/purposes that are defined, but then HTML adds meanings, how will I be able to handle my conformance? I haven’t changed the site, but the list changes. We can’t leave that open-ended.
+1!
> MG: If something gets deprecated in 5.2, my page based on 5.1 is going to continue to use that deprecated element until such time as I update the page. How is this different?
Personally, think there remains a bit of a gap here regarding conformance statements, an area WCAG 2.0 is (IMHO) a little weak on. Specifically, we've never really talked about (that I know of) this point or idea of dated and referenced conformance claims as we progress along the dot-release path. I agree with your perception here, but unless we have that documented, it is a subjective opinion (I may agree with it, but I also believe it is still an opinion). This is also related to the other discussion (which we've re-shelved per Andrew's request) w.r.t. the Landmarks Failure Technique and any other new Techniques for 2.0.
Perhaps this is an area of further discussion for the WG once we finalize the immediate tasks in front of us? (i.e. a potential topic for a CSUN F2F session?)
> AC: As per Michael’s email on the other thread: Conformance is at a particular date, so it’s the standard at the time.
WCAG 2.0 states:
Required Components of a Conformance Claim
Conformance claims are not required. Authors can conform to WCAG 2.0 without making a claim. However, if a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must include the following information:
1. Date of the claim
2. Guidelines title, version and URI "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2008%2FREC-WCAG20-20081211%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=Zpx93xVQXDqw9HTyE9GgSRWOIKf1VLQhnUfV%2BNYeFFk%3D&reserved=0>"
3. Conformance level satisfied: (Level A, AA or AAA)
4. A concise description of the Web pages, such as a list of URIs for which the claim is made, including whether subdomains are included in the claim.
Note 1: The Web pages may be described by list or by an expression that describes all of the URIs included in the claim.
Note 2: Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to installation on the customer's Web site may have a statement that the product would conform when installed.
5. A list of the Web content technologies<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG20%2F%23technologydef&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=SA13I5jXpDHxLKu7YYgib3lTFAYRWRN9nhZ2e6vYL0A%3D&reserved=0> relied upon<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG20%2F%23reliedupondef&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=NIR1%2BHwV8QgLLEwKRdV8OXUf4gEFHmzJr2SfAosldeE%3D&reserved=0>.
...which brings us back to the 'problem' that Techniques are not "...the standard at the time..." because they are not dated or normative or attached to a particular version of WCAG - there is no "time" associated to them. We can fix that problem, but it exists today.
Likewise for any "list" that we want to 'import' from another W3C Rec. - we need a dated and referenceable Recommendation for today, for tomorrow, or in 2028. For conformance claims, we need "snapshots" or milestone releases that do not change, so that they can be referenced directly in the Claim "forever".
> AC: This was one of the reasons that the W3C has tried to ‘version’ HTML though, so your conformance could also reference a specific version
Exactly. Pointing to a specific version of HTML5 allows that referenceable feature. @gowerm, if any of these autofill values were to be deprecated down the road, I'm willing to bet that the browsers will still support them (unless there is a critical security issue or similar catastrophic failure being introduced - at which point we'd likely have to amend our Rec too), because the browsers do not want to deliberately "break" legacy content. Meanwhile, if the list were to expand, those new additions would either be Best Practices, or we would need to re-address the SC (or augment it somehow) to add those new token values.
JF
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:
If something gets deprecated in 5.2, my page based on 5.1 is going to continue to use that deprecated element until such time as I update the page. How is this different?
4.1.2 does not define a spec for name, role or value.
Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research
1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%25C2%25A0V8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=WdwW9i%2FmE%2Br4%2FIY8CbL2eRGvp1P3DTrGfre%2B85KvANc%3D&reserved=0> V8T 5C3<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%25C2%25A0V8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=WdwW9i%2FmE%2Br4%2FIY8CbL2eRGvp1P3DTrGfre%2B85KvANc%3D&reserved=0>
gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: (250) 220-1146<tel:(250)%20220-1146> * cel: (250) 661-0098<tel:(250)%20661-0098> * fax: (250) 220-8034<tel:(250)%20220-8034>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
To: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Date: 2018-01-12 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
________________________________
If not referenced in the SC, then the conformance can change.
If I use HTML in a “living standard” way today and include all of the appropriate meanings/purposes that are defined, but then HTML adds meanings, how will I be able to handle my conformance? I haven’t changed the site, but the list changes. We can’t leave that open-ended.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=kWRJQWKQ5b515lhSoBWWon1ROoEDOySE%2Ff2f2f8dFwA%3D&reserved=0>
From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:58
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
I agree with Jason. I like having HTML 5.2 (or any standard) for a stake in the ground, but I think we can get around having that in the actual SC language as Jason describes.. We can reference it in the Understanding.
-Marc
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
No, I think it’s testable in that it only applies to the field types supported by the technology being used.
From:Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:53 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
Jason,
My concern is that without attaching a reference to a defined list this becomes untestable.
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Cd6ddd9365f2340afe82108d559e61973-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513767211470990-26sdata-3D0pLgccc5eXldfA-252BrBDpNp6nNeOYT64pJHz5ffOnTWT4-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3Di1atiYmACZynEV620J6l6fuFK7qiks6Mb4LxoQps4lc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=U%2B6Ls31roH%2FFxh9O31K7ilrJkw6VzeyPAcZBboj5TE4%3D&reserved=0>
From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org<mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:51
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
For content implemented using technologies that support specifying the purpose of specific types of form input fields, the purpose of each such field of a supported type can be programmatically determined.
From:Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
Thanks Marc.
Here’s a version with further edits:
In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data, the meaning can be programmatically determined for each user interface component that accepts user input corresponding to the user; inputs matching a meaning provided in the HTML 5.2 Autofill field names<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252Fhtml52-252Fsec-2Dforms.html-2523autofill-2Dfield-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C99e76206120a43d0157708d559e214d4-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513749899118798-26sdata-3DYIsK5eWlo1OU-252BXq-252BdOXr245xRPZEfIvd5o6LCBeCjL0-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DuFjRO94bHtuTYc3ZqqNn259qtZiCSzfWRAxSY7Y_FBg%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=%2F%2B9U66iP8cNsQjZbv39Jq7%2F9d1elGzB5demYSoQGT%2FQ%3D&reserved=0>must expose that meaning except if the technology being used does not support a corresponding autofill meaning.
What do people think?
Thanks,
AWK
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe
akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Ce6416acb90d34228707808d559e5143a-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513762788513280-26sdata-3DK2Pxk9EKsIqq42wTAblO1HC6NdU-252BKZZKiLCqWaUHMno-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DapUOTb1RjezIb461EUkfLLg-s4YZIpkTFmoJF-kbKg4%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=nfDIiMiaOscm3g7WlEkvkr%2BRTwcdsZLmbg79bdkLd1k%3D&reserved=0>
From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:03
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
I like the idea / premise and would +1 this replacing the wording in 1.3.4 - and even keeping it at AA with this idea / premise / wording.
I know we're out of time, but I would like to simplify the wording of the SC if possible. Sorry - no ideas right off the top of my head.. I'll try to come up with suggestions. It really just boils down to being as simple as Leonie asked.. if your tech supports autofill, use it - but I know the SC language needs to cover all of the bases. (It just took me a few read throughs to "get it").
Even if the wording stays as is, I would +1 this replacing current 1.3.4 wording - and leaving in as AA.
-Marc Johlic
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
This SC seems to be saying that when using HTML input fields to collect
user information, the input element needs to have the autocomplete
attribute set with a value corresponding to the expected information
(based on the tokens defined in HTML5.2). Is this right?
That is right. Of course there isn’t a value needed for every input, just the ones with the meaning that matches the list.
The SC also applies to other technologies that support autofill. If a technology other than HTML supports autofill and has some of the values that HTML 5.2 supports, those values need to be supported when using that technology also.
AWK
On 12/01/2018 14:47, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> OK, so here’s a new attempt at language for 1.3.4.
>
> This language is below. Several concerns are addressed:
>
> * Uses a small and already-established list of values, based on the
> values in HTML5.2, but only imposes those values on other
> technologies if those technologies share the same values.
> * Well-established browser support for input autofill, and provides a
> pathway for cognitive AT innovation.
> * Addresses a need established by the COGA group related to difficulty
> filling out forms as well as providing the personalization
> enhancements development pathway.
> * WCAG doesn’t need to provide a specific list of inputs by
> referencing the HTML list, but that list is versioned with HTML so
> the level of testability doesn’t change until we update the
> reference in WCAG 2.2 (or silver) to either an updated HTML or
> COGA/ARIA spec.
> * Specifically targeted to the user, so this isn’t for EVERY input
> control, just a handful in the HTML spec (~40) that relate to common
> user information (name, address, phone, credit card).
>
> Title: Support Common Input Fields
>
> SC Text:
>
> In content implemented using technologies with support for autofilling
> form inputs, the meaning of each user interface component that accepts
> user input corresponding to the user can be programmatically determined;
> inputs matching a meaning provided in the HTML 5.2 Autofill field names
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fhtml52%2Fsec-forms.html%23autofill-field&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=ToUIE6G%2FsKjrtn5JMEwM9hTps6iMOc6BtZwokR8IAzI%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252Fhtml52-252Fsec-2Dforms.html-2523autofill-2Dfield-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DToUIE6G-252FsKjrtn5JMEwM9hTps6iMOc6BtZwokR8IAzI-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DKwhRWsNCxJLmPtTZSk__WqkmNiIbl094ZPTvDGD2kkU%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=512sLu4PaWmg41nXbZJLTcEfx44OGAjT7r3zpfoS%2B%2BY%3D&reserved=0>> must expose
> that meaning except if the technology being used does not support a
> corresponding autofill meaning.
>
> Note:
>
> The set of meanings for inputs is based on HTML 5.2. It is not expected
> that every technology supports the same set, so content implemented
> using a technology that supports a subset of the HTML 5.2 autofill
> meanings is not required to provide support for meanings that are not
> supported by that technology.
>
> Note:
>
> Some technologies are expected to provide a list of meanings that is a
> superset of the HTML 5.2 set; authors are encouraged to implement
> support for additional meanings in their content in order to provide a
> better experience for users.
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2F1.3.4_autofill%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html%23identify-common-purpose&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=VHpV4ttfM7I2%2FFKZW6SCulpl8NgMOw%2BtZ2%2BRHugkCtE%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Frawgit.com-252Fw3c-252Fwcag21-252F1.3.4-5Fautofill-252Fguidelines-252Findex.html-2523identify-2Dcommon-2Dpurpose-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DVHpV4ttfM7I2-252FFKZW6SCulpl8NgMOw-252BtZ2-252BRHugkCtE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DYjp5j5hVz3iy85qva1keCGGlHeirevH2uVUoUmq3eR8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=p%2BvOPHPIynFHQJ7enm4eXak4gG477rs8vLlaAnPCOfU%3D&reserved=0>
>
> If you like it, or don’t like it, please speak up ASAP!
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=LG6X%2BPhGvkisWjEcmBqgBy%2FteFAEl9tq2izWdcwmbio%3D&reserved=0<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DLG6X-252BPhGvkisWjEcmBqgBy-252FteFAEl9tq2izWdcwmbio-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3D61z0SOgNS_ugr3TpfSDFaxVPRZMKiPvZv2ekRdSXjbQ%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=cCOPctP7Fzs8zOgICnvroI0zE%2FSccEYdPqLy6KIW0z0%3D&reserved=0>
>
--
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftink.uk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C77857df5a72447614ae208d559de604e-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C1-257C636513733998117846-26sdata-3DYtaWXq9SN2FjUMQYnIAGmvalPT6-252FHQxYEoBJO37shP0-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3D48EzoMKMcsyu9bUTUr7uNc8q_W3HfRpqpiYVquicVKA%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=5f9jNOIFln2p3lxFteyutiSkkEMXxHTq9PLWXscj2Fw%3D&reserved=0>carpe diem
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
________________________________
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
________________________________
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
________________________________
--
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 14 January 2018 11:39:42 UTC