Re: Unsupported Autofill values and Common Purpose

Hi Rachel,

Yes, a comparison chart can be found here:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Implementations/JF/research#Summary:

Still to come: support from 3rd party helper apps.

JF

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 10:47 AM, Bradley Montgomery, Rachael L. <
rbradley@mitre.org> wrote:

> I prefer option 2.  I still support some version of this SC going forward
> in 2.1. We moved to the HTML 5.2 autofill tokens because they provided a
> reference point but I believe we still had decent support for the short
> list (though less than for the tokens).  If the tokens are not being
> supported then the argument for them loses weight.
>
>
>
> Has anyone done a comparison between the short list and the token list?
>
>
>
> Rachael
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david@can-adapt.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 19, 2018 10:43 AM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Unsupported Autofill values and Common Purpose
>
>
>
> 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>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion