RE: 7-Day CFC: Move the Password Role to ARIA 2.0

While I have no objection to this CFC, I am concerned that the password discussion may well have moved beyond the point of diminishing returns, and that it has reached the stage at which confinement of the remaining issues should be acknowledged and decisions made. Specifically, concerns raised about this role have been thoroughly considered by the working group more than once. Many of them have turned out to be generic, and legitimate, problems either of custom password widgets, or of password authentication as implemented on the Web. Others (such as appropriate treatment of widgets with a password role, notably suppression of keyboard echo by screen readers) have been addressed in the draft as strongly advised guidance for implementors.
It seems clear that the best way to proceed would be to recognize that the issues are confined as documented in Michael Cooper’s helpful summary to the group, and to make decisions about the limited questions which remain. The idea of an aria-masked property or of a “masked” role remains as a second option which the group could choose. I am comfortable taking this up in ARIA 2.0, but preferably with a process that focuses on the issues which are specific to the proposed introduction of the role, and the alternative proposal which has been advanced.

________________________________

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.

________________________________