RE: Identify Common Purpose - resolving issues

I agree with David that on the scale of feasibility versus negligence it tends to lean towards the latter as it is right now. Outside the fact it could potentially be very useful and we personally want it in we should at least consider if it's worth the try of putting it in and risk negation which may affect 2.1 in total.

From: David MacDonald []
Sent: woensdag 10 januari 2018 13:53
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

The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.

Received on Wednesday, 10 January 2018 14:41:03 UTC