- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:45:08 -0600
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxxeBt=+-xmnGsey4huj4G4u87SsU4QyDzJUDiNq_EoK0A@mail.gmail.com>
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