Re: Objection to password role

Hi Jason,

> *a screen reader user can distinguish <input type=”password”> by how the
assistive technology handles it*

Actually, it was Joanie who indicated the difference in behavior, not I. My
concern is as much around human behavior, and learned assumptions over
time.

> *to the extent that they make these assumptions now, [users] will have to
learn not to make them.*

Problem statement right there.

Jason, while I respect that this may not seem to be a serious issue to you,
and how you use the web today, I will also note in passing that there is an
increasingly long list of known daily screen reader users who are all
chiming in with their concerns over this as well. (Here's one:
https://twitter.com/MarcoInEnglish/status/743680877444497408)

I asked for, and got, strong warning language around the use of this role
value, and I accept the use-cases that have been brought forward in support
of this role value (despite the fact we've *still* not seen an actual
example of one) and I will not impede progress of the ARIA spec over this.

None-the-less, the fact that we are still discussing this issue, and that
others are now starting to also express concerns, tells me that there still
may be some work to be done here - and that is an observational statement
and nothing more.

JF

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 2:10 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>]
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:34 PM
>
> The problem with "password" is that for over 20+ years of the internet,
> the idea of a password field has earned some presumed security and privacy
> features that you often don't think about - certainly not actively. For
> example, if you type a character string into an input type="password", you
> cannot then highlight and copy what is rendered on screen, and paste it
> into a text editor to see the string - it will copy and paste as "stars".
> That's just one example, there are others (for example "...browsers are
> likely to save the value for autocomplete  unless they explicitly recognise
> the role as defining a real password  field.” - Chaals McCathieNevile
> (Yandex) -
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Apr/0054.html.)
>
>
>
> *[Jason] So the argument is supposed to be that a screen reader user can
> distinguish <input type=”password”> by how the assistive technology handles
> it, from custom password widgets, thus having an advantage that the non-AT
> user lacks. Then we’re supposed to believe that such screen reader users go
> on to make certain assumptions that may or may not hold. I appreciate
> John’s setting out this position. I don’t find it convincing since I think
> such users, to the extent that they make these assumptions now, will have
> to learn not to make them.*
>
>
>
> *The situation is no different from that of a password field in a desktop
> or mobile application, which for all the user knows could be a widget
> provided by the platform or a custom widget supplied by the application
> that behaves in subtly different ways. Thus the ARIA proposal simply brings
> the Web use case into line with desktop and mobile applications (where, to
> the best of my knowledge, it’s possible to write a custom password widget
> and to make it accessible to screen reader users by declaring it in the
> accessibility API).*
>
>
>
> *If it’s a choice between this group’s declining to make custom password
> widgets accessible, and not alerting the user to the possibility that the
> application author may have violated certain assumptions, then my vote is
> strongly in support of making the custom fields accessible – and more
> secure by suppressing keyboard echo. That is, while I think John has well
> articulated an objection, I’m not persuaded that it’s a good case for
> changing this group’s position regarding the password role, namely, that it
> should be included in ARIA.*
>
>
>
> *Note also that the very act of deciding to enter sensitive information
> into a field requires a certain elvel of trust in the security of the
> application. If I knew I were confronted with a custom widget rather than
> an <input type=password” would I have an additional, substantial reason not
> to enter sensitive password text into it? My answer is: “probably not”, or
> at best, “not much”. The decision would be dominated by my other reasons to
> entrust (or not to entrust) the application with sensitive information. I
> don’t think knowing whether a password field is custom or not is
> significantly going to affect anybody’s decision about whether to enter
> password text into it; and that’s the important choice to be made by the
> user in this context.*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion