Re: Objection to password role --- example thread

So how is it a custom password field? A role of password as proposed would add nothing in the situation shown in the IAAP example.

—Michiel

> On 22 Jun 2016, at 17:06, Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Michiel,
> 
> In this example, it does switch to input type="password" when you want the text obscured. 
> 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Fred Esch 
> Watson, IBM, W3C Accessibility
> <15927898.gif> Watson Release Management and Quality
> 
> 
> <graycol.gif>Michiel Bijl ---06/22/2016 10:31:01 AM---What happens if you uncheck the “show password” checkbox? Is it still type=text? Or does it return t
> 
> From: Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl>
> To: Fred Esch/Arlington/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com>, ARIA <public-aria@w3.org>
> Date: 06/22/2016 10:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Objection to password role
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if you uncheck the “show password” checkbox? Is it still type=text? Or does it return to type=password?
> 
> —Michiel
> On 22 Jun 2016, at 16:20, Fred Esch <fesch@us.ibm.com <mailto:fesch@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
> Rich,
> 
> Here is an screen shot of a custom password (very bottom of screen shot). This on the checkout for International Association of Accessibility Professionals (IAAP) when signing up for a webinar. You can choose to not mask the password. Using inspector to look at the HTML, the field is input type="text". Unfortunately, since this is part of a checkout system, I can't share a usable URL. 
> 
> <13426391.jpg>
> I hope this satisfies folks desire to see an instance of a custom password. You may have to sign up for an IAAP webinar or event to see it yourself.
> Regards, 
> 
> Fred Esch 
> Watson, IBM, W3C Accessibility
> <13375923.gif> Watson Release Management and Quality
> 
> 
> <graycol.gif>Rich Schwerdtfeger ---06/22/2016 06:33:34 AM---What I am going to do: - ask the group that we mark password at risk
> 
> From: Rich Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com <mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>>
> To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
> Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>>, Michiel Bijl <michiel@agosto.nl <mailto:michiel@agosto.nl>>, ARIA Working Group <public-aria@w3.org <mailto:public-aria@w3.org>>
> Date: 06/22/2016 06:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Objection to password role
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am going to do:
> 
> - ask the group that we mark password at risk
> - work with browser and ATVs during CR. 
> - ask James Nurthen to have Oracle point to actual examples if they can. I think that is fair.
> - address the issue of some browser vendors consistently weighing in late despite the additional time allotted to review resolutions on the list. This is unacceptable and disrespectful of other working group members. Seriously, a tiny tweet from Mozilla is the best they can do? We have worked for years with Mozilla. That is totally out of character for them. They have done so much for accessibility.
> 
> Net. We don't have to hold up entering CR if we do these things. Either it gets implementation or it doesn't. 
> 
> We need to get to Aria 2 and get SVG on a level playing field with html to stop people from being left behind. Far too much time has been spent on a feature that I think is needed but in the grand scheme of things is noise. 
> 
> We need to get to the other things in our charter and we need some of the limited technical skills we have to boost that CSS task force effort which, to me, is a huge issue.
> 
> Rich
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:31 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
> JF wrote:
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> No no no no no... don't try and pin this on me - this time it was Michiel and James Craig ("This is a fairly damning amount of evidence. <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria/2016Jun/0115.html>") that returned to the list with comments. Rich, my concerns for the most part have been heard, and addressed with the warning language. Whether you think Marco Zehe's and Sina Bahrm's opinion (via twitter) have value or not is up to you - we are trying to get to CR and then Rec according to a timeline, and you want to meet that timeline. I respect that, and have stated as much multiple times now. 
> 
> What however, are you going to do if you start getting a lot of public comments over this during CR? What are you going to say and do if Marco and Sina both file comments as part of the CR process? Get mad and say that we've already answered these questions? And while you state we've already addressed all the issues, as late as last week's ARIA call there were 2 open Action items against this topic that have not been closed, and so I will respectfully submit that stating this is "finished" is a bit premature today. 
> 
> You have stated that IBM is assisting Freedom Scientific to get this implemented, and Joanie is working on this for ORCA, but that still leaves at least 3 Operating Systems (not User Agents; Operating Systems) with no implementation (Android, iOS, MacOS) which still concerns me, and should concern you too given that this means zero coverage for mobile devices, and I've not seen any evidence or indication that this Working Group has taken a single step in engaging with other SR vendors to communicate what will be expected of them (which as I recall was a condition of the CfC - "...include the password role in the ARIA 1.1 editor’s draft, subject to security and AT feedback." - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Apr/0030.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aria-admin/2016Apr/0030.html> - those were your exact words, which I took at face value then, and now). 
> 
> I have already agreed to keep working on this, and to take it out for wider review in the CR - I voted positively on your CfC that stated this was what we were going to do; I stand by that indication today, and I have already noted with appreciation that the Warning text was added. My hope and expectation is that during that wider review we *will* get feedback from other Screen Reader vendors, as well as a more formal review from Security Experts as part of the W3C Process - but be very clear, I have given this over to W3C Process and I am not fighting you on this. 
> 
> > I made a suggestion about the mapping to indicate that it was a custom password. I would like to hear a response. That is equivalent to exposing a different role so the user knows it is not a standard HTML password which I add again is not entirely secure.
> 
> I would support that going forward, as an improvement over the status quo. 
> 
> JF
> 
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Richard Schwerdtfeger <richschwer@gmail.com <mailto:richschwer@gmail.com>> wrote:
> We are still discussing the issue because the same people keep bringing up what has already been discussed. This is what happened with longdesc. I don’t want to rehash old issues that have been addressed. 
> 
> Marco’s tweet has no substance that anyone can action on. 
> 
> What I am becoming increasingly concerned about is that no matter how much this group invests in addressing the issues that the same group of people will just throw in another roadblock to try to not see it in even if there is not additional information provided. We are trying to work with you John but that will not fly here. Mozilla is a member of this working group and they have had more than ample opportunity to come to this group and raise technical concerns. This has been discussed for once. 
> 
> I made a suggestion about the mapping to indicate that it was a custom password. I would like to hear a response. That is equivalent to exposing a different role so the user knows it is not a standard HTML password which I add again is not entirely secure. The fact that it claims to be secure is a fallacy as Jason indicates. Perhaps I should raise a formal objection to HTML 5.1 as password is still not totally secure in browsers. I could add that there should be HTML 5.1 text that says that browsers, like Firefox, should not expose a mean for a user to get access to the value. One thing the custom password field has is that it is not as easily retrieved. 
> 
> Rich
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 3:49 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 <mailto:jjwhite@ets.org>> wrote:
>  <>From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com <mailto: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 <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 <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com <mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
> 
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
> 
> 
>