RE: we can not change the scope for purpose of controls

If no one is disagreeing with that, great. That's my misunderstanding. I 
will update my comment accordingly.
But why is "user" not appearing in the terms? Do people really think one 
line above saying it all applies to the user is sufficient to prevent 
misapplication of these purpose terms?

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To:     Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, "lisa.seeman" 
<lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc:     "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2017-12-01 03:59 PM
Subject:        RE: we can not change the scope for purpose of controls



Hi Michael,
 
Is anyone disagreeing with including the (for the) user aspect? Lisa is 
happy with including it after I emailed earlier.
 
I’m assuming the CFC is on the SC text, and the list is very important 
here, but is it reason to throw the whole thing out when we agree on it? 
 
Am I missing something?
 
-Alastair
 
From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: 01 December 2017 19:42
To: lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
Cc: W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: we can not change the scope for purpose of controls
 
> If we are very specific in a scope that does not apply to the 
autocomplete specification there may be a problem with people using that 
specification to conform. 

Which has been one of the problems with this approach. The second we 
insist on a normative list, if anything is at odds with a specification, 
we potentially invalidate the use of that specification.

However, I think in this particular case, NOT including "user" is the 
problem, not the other way around. If we don't make it specific to the 
person filling in the form, and are relying on html5 autocomplete for our 
schema, then we are requiring the autocomplete to be used anywhere there 
is an occurrence of a label whose purpose is to capture "name" values.

That would effectively force an author to use the autocomplete value for 
all name fields in their form, regardless of whether the name was about 
the user. So you would see your name appearing in the label intended for 
your daughter's name, etc.

Looking at autocomplete their intent seems exactly opposite this. I think 
we HAVE to have name in there or our spec will break use of HTML5 entirely 
-- or force all teams to use something other than html5 for all the input 
purposes in our list. If it's gone to CFC without it, it needs to be 
rescinded.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>
To:        "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:        2017-11-30 09:07 PM
Subject:        we can not change the scope for purpose of controls




Hi Folks

On the call yesterday there was a request to add scope of "the user" to 
the list items in the purpose of controls .

This is a problem because we want people to be able to use autocomplete. 
If we are very specific in a scope that does not apply to the autocomplete 
specification there may be a problem with people using that specification 
to conform. 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter