Re: SC 1.3.4 - Understanding doc update

Congratulations Alister on your new role. Well desrved.

I feel quite strongly that we do not want to miss any educational opportunities for promoting better. So the understanding section here needs to reflect key principles


1. Help the user avoid making mistake and understand the content


2. Support personlization and 


3. Support extra help from user agents.


This will allow us to add advisory techniques


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 17:06:04 +0200 Katie Haritos-Shea<ryladog@gmail.com> wrote ---- 

Alastair,

Thanks for taking on the work for this Understanding content.


* katie * 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect 
WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did, 
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to dictate where we are going.






 
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:45 AM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> 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... 


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). 
  
 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