Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

My thought is that we have already spend a LOT of time on this which, given the fixed deadline, takes away time for other SCs / issues where progress is urgently needed. I would propose NOT to discuss theses issues one by one in the next Telco as this will take up the entire meeting and will likely end with ‘leave open’ anyway, which we can’t afford.

My proposal would be to have a straw poll at the outset whether we
A - move the SC to 2.2 for more discussion and solving the issues raised in due course
B - keep it on level AAA and wade through issues
C - keep it on current level and wade through issues

My own preference is for A. I want the other open SCs / issues to be addressed, not pushed back because of our protracted problems with this one.

Sent from phone

> Am 10.01.2018 um 03:09 schrieb Andrew Kirkpatrick <>:
> OK, we have 12 issues raised on 1.3.4 (Identify Common Purpose). We need to be able to resolve these quickly, and it will be very difficult. The brief summaries of the issues are below.
> In general, the concerns are:
> No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.
> Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove some, reference externally, or what
> Security concerns/conflicts.
> Suggests moving to AAA due to lack of implementations and required support if 2.1 takes ISO path. Problem in Japan. (major)
> Proposes sentence structure change (minor)
> Presently there are no add-ons or AT supporting the SC, change to AAA (major)
> Concerned about the dilemma of a fixed list of purposes vs. an untestable (moving target) maintained list. (major)
> Suggests waiting for browsers/UA to possibly pick up data and then it will be time to ask developers to support it. (major)
> Suggests a reference to the HTML autofill list, or at least clarifying in understanding that the list will become out of date with the source. Thinks should be for HTML only also. (major)
> Concerned that the purposes need to be uniquely identifiable and referenceable. (seems solved)
> Wants more and better understanding content. Raises potential security risks. (major)
> “compose” / “new” question related to a specific metadata item in the list.
> similar to 635 (seems solved)
> comment that raises possible concerns and conflicts with security requirements for sites (major – solved?)
> List of purposes needs more terms (minor/major)
> Thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe 

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 04:26:41 UTC