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

I was following John's comments in email, not sure if that has been integrated with github versions yet, but I think we agree on the principle.

Sent from my phone, apologies for typos.
________________________________
From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 2, 2017 12:14:43 AM
To: Alastair Campbell
Cc: lisa.seeman; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org
Subject: 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.



Iím 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<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>
To:        "W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org<mailto:W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3.%20Org>" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__il.linkedin.com_in_lisaseeman_&d=DwMCaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=iYVRfzNTSLN9JG6nD8dhMvoxLEi97PpJGTK_GXLq1t4&s=Yk7g77ADsQPFEfaoX_aBQLNebdLdIc_tjamp5ZG5MkQ&e=>, Twitter<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_SeemanLisa&d=DwMCaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=iYVRfzNTSLN9JG6nD8dhMvoxLEi97PpJGTK_GXLq1t4&s=_96Ub9D9zlCjkkO3ZHq_lQjYGJbhjZTQfuluXljBUSU&e=>

Received on Saturday, 2 December 2017 00:21:13 UTC