- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:43:51 +0000
- To: "tink@tink.uk" <tink@tink.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This SC seems to be saying that when using HTML input fields to collect user information, the input element needs to have the autocomplete attribute set with a value corresponding to the expected information (based on the tokens defined in HTML5.2). Is this right? That is right. Of course there isn’t a value needed for every input, just the ones with the meaning that matches the list. The SC also applies to other technologies that support autofill. If a technology other than HTML supports autofill and has some of the values that HTML 5.2 supports, those values need to be supported when using that technology also. AWK On 12/01/2018 14:47, Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote: > OK, so here’s a new attempt at language for 1.3.4. > > This language is below. Several concerns are addressed: > > * Uses a small and already-established list of values, based on the > values in HTML5.2, but only imposes those values on other > technologies if those technologies share the same values. > * Well-established browser support for input autofill, and provides a > pathway for cognitive AT innovation. > * Addresses a need established by the COGA group related to difficulty > filling out forms as well as providing the personalization > enhancements development pathway. > * WCAG doesn’t need to provide a specific list of inputs by > referencing the HTML list, but that list is versioned with HTML so > the level of testability doesn’t change until we update the > reference in WCAG 2.2 (or silver) to either an updated HTML or > COGA/ARIA spec. > * Specifically targeted to the user, so this isn’t for EVERY input > control, just a handful in the HTML spec (~40) that relate to common > user information (name, address, phone, credit card). > > Title: Support Common Input Fields > > SC Text: > > In content implemented using technologies with support for autofilling > form inputs, the meaning of each user interface component that accepts > user input corresponding to the user can be programmatically determined; > inputs matching a meaning provided in the HTML 5.2 Autofill field names > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fhtml52%2Fsec-forms.html%23autofill-field&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=ToUIE6G%2FsKjrtn5JMEwM9hTps6iMOc6BtZwokR8IAzI%3D&reserved=0> must expose > that meaning except if the technology being used does not support a > corresponding autofill meaning. > > Note: > > The set of meanings for inputs is based on HTML 5.2. It is not expected > that every technology supports the same set, so content implemented > using a technology that supports a subset of the HTML 5.2 autofill > meanings is not required to provide support for meanings that are not > supported by that technology. > > Note: > > Some technologies are expected to provide a list of meanings that is a > superset of the HTML 5.2 set; authors are encouraged to implement > support for additional meanings in their content in order to provide a > better experience for users. > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2F1.3.4_autofill%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html%23identify-common-purpose&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=VHpV4ttfM7I2%2FFKZW6SCulpl8NgMOw%2BtZ2%2BRHugkCtE%3D&reserved=0 > > If you like it, or don’t like it, please speak up ASAP! > > Thanks, > > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > > Group Product Manager, Accessibility > > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=LG6X%2BPhGvkisWjEcmBqgBy%2FteFAEl9tq2izWdcwmbio%3D&reserved=0 > -- @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk carpe diem
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 15:44:18 UTC