W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2018

Re: SC 1.3.4 - Understanding doc update

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:45:08 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKdCpxxeBt=+-xmnGsey4huj4G4u87SsU4QyDzJUDiNq_EoK0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
Hi Alastair,

Much better, thanks.

One remaining sticking point... you indicate a change in SC name to
"Autocomplete", which I wouldn't completely oppose, but the WG has yet to
discuss or consent to that change (nor this Draft Text). There *are* other
proposals for a change of name, some of which I have previously offered
on-list:

   - ​Common Inputs
   - Automated Inputs
   - Metadata on Inputs  (<< This introduces the concept of metadata, which
   may be a positive reinforcement)

Perhaps we could ask the Chairs (all 3 - congrats BTW) to add this to the
agenda for today's call? One larger question remains: *CAN* we make an
editorial change of this significance at this stage of the CR process? I
believe so, but we need to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s...

JF


On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the review, I’ve made updates, some comments/replies also:
>
>
>
> 1)  … HOWEVER both ways still use the @autocomplete attribute (only).
>
> Good point, I got confused on that. It feels like there should be one for
> true/false, and one for the value, but never mind!
>
>
>
> Updated.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2)  "... although it isn’t very helpful for personalisation..."
>
> [JF] I *STRONGLY* reject that assertion (as did Jon Avila
> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2018JanMar/1328.html>).
>
>
>
> AC: That was from my email, which was describing the comments from the
> call last week (and not what I said in the understanding doc).
>
>
>
> Whilst the attribute could be used as a basis for adding icons, what I
> mean (in the doc) is that the scope is not very wide. I.e. of all the
> attributes / purposes we could add, this is a small sub-set.
>
>
>
> The second paragraph of the understanding talks about personalisation and
> being future-compatible. However, any suggestion that this would be the
> basis or reason for adding personalisation is likely to run into issues –
> it isn’t enough to justify it.
>
>
>
>
> 3) Metadata tokens
>
>
>
> I’ll add a link to the semantics spec in the 2nd paragraph.
>
>
>
>
>
> 4) Housekeeping
>
>
> Yea, I don’t find the non-hyphenated one as readable, but I think the US
> spelling aspect will win there.
>
> Updated.
>
>
>
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/autocomplete.html
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>



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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Tuesday, 27 February 2018 14:45:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:00 UTC