- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:41:30 -0500
- To: Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com>
- Cc: Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl>, ARIA Working Group Admin <public-aria-admin@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxyEBrJcmOv7VYW-dC2Vzq9BsCxr=Oi_76dAAwrZ99fG8g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Joanie, I think you've answered your own question <smile> - you are correct, I do not believe we cannot make the security/privacy requirements normative, as we cannot enforce that, and equally, the @role value will work as designed whether the author has taken these additional steps or not - this is and has been the root of my concern all along, that the browsers are marginally involved with any functionality here. I believe the best we can get today is a strong Warning that this role simply conveys some information (this is a password field), and impacts the way screen readers will process the content inserted into the editable region, with no other security or privacy functionality attached to it. The original draft language proposed during the last conference call started off with the word "Warning:...", however Michiel removed that actual word, and instead used the warning class available in the ReSpec (which is great BTW). Returning to Michael's comment, are there any technical concerns, or editorial concerns with the current draft that we should continue to review? I'm hoping we can continue to meet the June 8th CfC closure date. Cheers! JF On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Joanmarie Diggs <jdiggs@igalia.com> wrote: > Hi John. > > I mainly am questioning if we want it to be a warning, rather than a > more normative statement. Granted the problem with a normative statement > is that it's hard to test that the authors have done it. > > --joanie > > On 06/03/2016 09:18 AM, John Foliot wrote: > > Hi Michiel, > > > > Thanks. To echo Michael, if there are any proposed edits to the current > > draft text, let's see them now so that the group can make a final > > decision - my sense yesterday on the call was that most folks were happy > > with what we had, but if we need to fine-tune it let's do so before the > > weekend (if possible), as this CfC closes in 5 days. > > > > Cheers! > > > > JF > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl > > <mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>> wrote: > > > > John, > > > > It was actually Joanie that said she wanted to make some edits > > yesterday on IRC. I have copied her in. I have asked our internal > > language specialist to have a look at it too. > > > > —Michiel > > > >> On 03 Jun 2016, at 01:57, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com > >> <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote: > >> > >> +1 to Michael. > >> > >> This is the current proposed draft. If you believe it can be > >> improved, I for one welcome the submission and am amiable to > >> consider it. What were you thinking Michiel? > >> > >> My goal is to get it as good as we can without impeding progress. > >> > >> JF > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org > >> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Word smithing is often editorial, but not always. If you see a > >> potential need for it, it would be helpful to make your > >> suggestion now so people can consider it as they review this > >> CfC and can decide if they want to comment in favor or against > >> it. If people do not comment or appear to strongly favor one > >> or the other, and it seems clearly editorial, then we can > >> leave it to chair / editors to decide what to do with it when > >> ratifiying the CfC. > >> > >> Because it's potentially technical, I suggest word-smithing be > >> copied to the main WG list, not just the admin list. > >> > >> (My goal here is to suggest a way for "friendly amendments" to > >> be considered without requiring a new consensus call or > >> invalidating the original one if the amendment draws concern > >> or proves not editorial.) > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> > >> On 02/06/2016 6:25 PM, Michiel Bijl wrote: > >>> +1 to this warning. It might need some word smithing, but that > would be editorial no? > >>> > >>> —Michiel > >>> > >>>> On 02 Jun 2016, at 23:22, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> > >>>> <mailto:cooper@w3.org> wrote: This is a Call for Consensus > >>>> (CfC) to the Accessible Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) > >>>> Working Group regarding the following resolution of the ARIA > >>>> Working group: Accept John's suggested warning text for the > >>>> password role Background This was approved by the > >>>> participants of the 2 June 2016 teleconference, and further > >>>> context is available in the minutes: > >>>> https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04 < > https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04> > >>>> <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/02-aria-minutes.html#item04>If > >>>> this CfC is accepted, the following pull request will be > >>>> merged: https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396 < > https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396> > >>>> <https://github.com/w3c/aria/pull/396> > >>>> Action > >>>> This CfC is now open for objection, comment, as well as > statements of support via email. Silence will be interpreted as support, > though messages of support are certainly welcome. > >>>> If you object to this proposal, or have comments concerning > it, please respond by replying on list to this message no later than 23:59 > (midnight) Boston Time, Wednesday, 8 June 2016. For objections only, please > copy the main aria@w3.org <mailto:aria@w3.org> <mailto:aria@w3.org> > <mailto:aria@w3.org> list to allow technical discussion of the objection > to happen there. > >>>> Process > >>>> This CfC is conducted per the ARIA WG decision policy: > >>>> > >>>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy < > https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy> > >>>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/decision-policy>I am issuing > >>>> this CfC as acting chair, but Rich will record the formal > >>>> ratification if passed. Michael > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> John Foliot > >> Principal Accessibility Consultant > >> Deque Systems Inc. > >> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> > >> > >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> John Foliot > >> Principal Accessibility Consultant > >> Deque Systems Inc. > >> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> > >> > >> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > > > > > > > > > > -- > > John Foliot > > Principal Accessibility Consultant > > Deque Systems Inc. > > john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com> > > > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 15:42:02 UTC