Re: some questions: : working on re-authentication

Hi Alastair

I do not think it is  supported in 1.3.1. (info & relationships) or well supported in 4.1.2 or even "purpose of common controls". 
My bank (the example from hell) gives you different login number/card number where a "user id"  needs to match a password. 


The password card id number is not part of the list of purpose of common controls. The role and name may be accessible, but auto complete is not "on" and I suspect they often change the name attribute about once every two months  because once the password auto fill thing works and then it stops. What is more it needs to match the card number ID and password, and they give me a new card each time I go to the back (because I am locked out again...). three mistakes and you are blocked again. Basically they may conform to the other SC's but I still can not use it.


(Yes I think of changing banks but I do not know that another one is better until I have an account there)


All the best

Lisa Seeman

LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 14:13:34 +0200 Alastair Campbell<acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote ---- 

      Hi Lisa,
  
 (John – question for you below.)
  
 For this:
 - authentication process can rely on the user or user-agent entering personal identification information such as name, username, password, and email address if the web content consistently supports automatic entry.
  
 > Automatic entry of user information can not work because autocomplete and the name is not set . It is not quite blocking the user agent rather they are not supported. 
  
  
 If the username/password (or other) inputs pass 1.3.1. (info & relationships) and 4.1.2 (role/name/value) then user-agents currently support automatic entry unless the site actively blocks it. 
  
 Also, there would also be overlap with the new SC that requires the autofill attributes, which I think includes username and current-password? (JF – have they been kept in the list?)
 
 
 Therefore, I would like to revert that change to avoid overlap with other SCs.
  
  
 > Also if transcribe follows the dictionary definition we can just clarify what we mean in the understanding section. Is that Ok?
  
 I think that would be best.
  
 Cheers,
  
 -Alastair