Re: SC 1.3.4 - Understanding doc update

John Foliot wrote:
> 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...
We can for sure discuss this today.

My 2 cents is that I prefer that this SC is not totally mapped to 
Autocomplete, or be known as Autocomplete as the scope and the potential 
(which not a full on personalisation suite) is greater.

Thanks

Josh
>
> JF
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Alastair Campbell 
> <acampbell@nomensa.com <mailto: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 2^nd 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<https://alastairc.ac/tmp/autocomplete.html>
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     -Alastair
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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

-- 
Joshue O Connor
Director | InterAccess.ie