Re: H91 changes

Greg,

1. Why conflict with other, forthcoming documents? This table conflicts pretty completely with HTML Accessibility API Mappings 1.0 and the documents on which it's based. It's still a working draft, but as it's their job to explain all this. Shouldn't we simply refer readers to one or more of those documents, instead? (Probably more than one if we want to address web technologies beyond just HTML.)

I’d love to point to another document, but unless it is done we can’t.  We can update this in the future pretty easily.  The Mappings 1.0 document doesn’t have a simple role/name/value/state table though, so I think that there is value in this, even if we would rather have another group maintain it.

2. Is this table useful for content authors? It seems more appropriate for UAAG and ATAG than for WCAG. How do you expect content authors to use it? The whole point of H91 seems to be to use standard links and form controls so you won’t have to take special steps or think about these issues, beyond the basics of providing attributes such as alt. Am I missing something?

I think that this is very useful for authors/evaluators who need to make sure that what they implement meets the relevant success criteria.

If we decide to keep it, I've spotted some serious internal errors that should be fixed, as well as some editorial and grammatical errors. But we'd have to rewrite it pretty completely anyway if we didn't want it to conflict with the documents mentioned above.

If you can provide more detail, that would help.
Thanks,
AWK


    Thanks,
    Greg

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: H91 changes
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com><mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org><mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: 5/25/2016 6:02 AM
WCAG -

We discussed H91 on a call a few weeks ago and the group approved the changes on the call, but people wanted to see the changes in rendered HTML rather than HTML code because the changes are in a table and it is difficult to read in markup.

This started out as a request to at aria-label and aria-labelledby (https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/167) but the group felt that technique H91 should stay focused on the support provided in HTML directly, and needed to add the new form types found in HTML5.

The changes are here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/179/files?diff=split

The rendered HTML version of the changed table is here: <http://awkawk.github.io/h91.html> http://awkawk.github.io/h91.html (this just has the table from the technique, see the bottom of the code for the changes to the test procedure.
The original technique: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H91.html


What do people think?  Any questions/concerns?

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk