RE: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

Another option would be to remove from the list in the Appendix all terms which are not available in the HTML5 autocomplete attribute, for which there are implementations. This would not preclude the later use of other accessibility-supported techniques for providing the metadata; it would simply ensure that there is an existing, implemented, method of achieving it.

From: David MacDonald []
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 7:53 AM
To: Detlev Fischer <>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <>; WCAG <>
Subject: Re: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

I remember when we were trying to get consensus on proceeding with this one, the group was split and there was plenty of concern. I suggested we proceed with it understanding that it would be at risk, with the hope that the issues would get resolved. I've worked with the sub group dedicated to this and I really wanted it to work.

I agree with Detlev that it appears we've kept it in as long as we could and have done everything possible to try to make it work, including many hours together as a group.

Unfortunately, it appears our time is up and the implementations and maturity levels of the technology needed for this to be useful are just not there yet. I don't think we have satisfactory resolutions or responses to address the substantive comments.

It is a very big ask of developers at AA and currently there is no assurance that it will help anyone, or that mature tools will be available or become mainstream AT over the life of 2.1 which is a couple of years.

It may cause 2.1 to be be rejected or at least picked apart in some jurisdictions.

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<>

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:26 PM, Detlev Fischer <<>> wrote:
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:

  1.  No implementations. We have an indication that one is coming, but I’m not sure if it is English-only or not.
  2.  Making the list – how it was determined, whether we add more, remove some, reference externally, or what
  3.  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)



Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.


Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 14:36:24 UTC