Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

I like the idea / premise and would +1 this replacing the wording in 1.3.4
- and even keeping it at AA with this idea / premise / wording.

I know we're out of time, but I would like to simplify the wording of the
SC if possible.  Sorry - no ideas right off the top of my head..  I'll try
to come up with suggestions.  It really just boils down to being as simple
as Leonie asked..  if your tech supports autofill, use it - but I know the
SC language needs to cover all of the bases.  (It just took me a few read
throughs to "get it").

Even if the wording stays as is, I would +1 this replacing current 1.3.4
wording - and leaving in as AA.

-Marc Johlic

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:43 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> 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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%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%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513679887347881&sdata=LG6X%2BPhGvkisWjEcmBqgBy%
> 2FteFAEl9tq2izWdcwmbio%3D&reserved=0
>     >
>
>     --
>     @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe tink.uk carpe diem
>
>
>