- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:40:30 -0600
- To: Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, COGA TF <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxx=nfauwMCu6v2HisE0r-5JosYiLkH6Bo7=NNNJCU08yA@mail.gmail.com>
+1 Josh, and that's my concern/point as well. JF On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess < josh@interaccess.ie> wrote: > 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> > 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 > > > -- > Joshue O Connor > Director | InterAccess.ie > -- 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 15:41:06 UTC