Re: Unsupported Autofill values and Common Purpose

David,

I am thinking the music will not be harmonic.

So, for me, of your suggested numbers, 1 or 2 makes the most sense. I would
prefer we ask the COGA task force for their preference of those two options.

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:42 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I think we are in a very difficult position. It appears many of the HTML
> 5.2 autofill tokens are not supported by browsers (and there are currently
> no plugins that work) Furthermore, some of them might disappear from the
> next version of HTML. One reason we decided to reference this list of over
> 50 tokens instead of the shorter list that we had internally was because we
> believed they wouldn't have gotten into the HTML 5 spec without support.
> Apparently, this was a mistaken assumption because only about 18 out of
> over 50 are supported.
>
> So now we are in a position where we may be requiring authors for the next
> several years to implement tokens that have no support that might disappear
> in the next version of HTML. There is currently a new COGA sec being
> developed by Lisa and Richard that uses these values (referenced in last
> week's minutes). We've also been told by the COGA team that the existing
> success criterion has lost 95% of its existing intention.
>
> As I see it we have several choices before us:
>
> 1. Remove the success criterion for 2.1 and wait until the next version of
> WCAG where technology is more stable things settle down. Maybe at that
> point the new specification being developed by Lisa and Richard will be
> stable and there will be AT to support it.
> 2. Go back to an internal list which is short and only includes the
> supported values such as first name, last name etc. this may send us back
> to another round of CR. Or perhaps we've got it in time... I don't know.
> 3. press forward and to face the music
>
> My Preference would be #2.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>
> 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>
>