W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:44:31 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
CC: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C28D826-2569-4C37-AA4F-EF87E1C8FB90@adobe.com>
Started using “meaning” because that is used in the HTML spec. I don’t feel strongly about that.

The HTML list has more, but to avoid creating the normative list ourselves we would need to reference a normative list  or reference such a list and identify exclusions. We don’t have any basis to identify the exclusions, so it is the set that HTML 5.2 provides in this proposal.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:39
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

I might have missed the discussion of changing "purpose" to "meaning". Can anyone bring me up to speed on the reason for that?

Whichever is used... it might need a definition if its specific beyond a dictionary.

Also, it seems like that HTML 5.2 list has some "meanings" that were not in our list... do we want to widen the requirements for those additional ones listed in the spec, but not on our culled down list.

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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C83f71bacef6243a36cfc08d559e3643e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513755529479931&sdata=idKdOtyfJBJG7uJB5nI171JQtR0kFEN9XxMsBQNBOGk%3D&reserved=0>

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
Thanks Marc.

Here’s a version with further edits:
In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input data, the meaning can be programmatically determined for each user interface component that accepts user input corresponding to the user; 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%7C83f71bacef6243a36cfc08d559e3643e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513755529479931&sdata=3uH4DCULEoioufne4kfkaKrfpHC2z%2BdALMRgasy1nB8%3D&reserved=0> must expose that meaning except if the technology being used does not support a corresponding autofill meaning.

What do people think?


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com<mailto:marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:03
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: 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<mailto: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.


    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<mailto: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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftink.uk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C77857df5a72447614ae208d559de604e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636513733998117846&sdata=YtaWXq9SN2FjUMQYnIAGmvalPT6%2FHQxYEoBJO37shP0%3D&reserved=0> carpe diem

Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 17:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:21 UTC