Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

Minor tweak?

In content implemented using technologies with support for autofilling form
inputs, and an equivalent input field that maps to any of the HTML 5.2
Autofill field names
<https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#autofill-field> is used, the
meaning of the equivalent input fields can be programmatically determined.


On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Alex Li (CELA) <alli@microsoft.com> wrote:

> How about something like this?
>
>
>
> In content implemented using technologies with support for autofilling
> form inputs and an equivalent input field as any of the HTML 5.2 Autofill
> field names <https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#autofill-field>
> is used, the meaning of the equivalent input fields can be programmatically
> determined.
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 10:26 AM
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
>
>
>
> If a company creates a tool that allows people to create web content they
> may be able to conform when the software is tested but that is a different
> date then for the person who builds content with it.
>
>
>
> The suggestions are very much like 1.3.5:
>
> In content implemented using markup languages, the purpose of User
> Interface Components
> <http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-user-interface-components>,
> icons, and regions
> <http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#dfn-regions> can
> be programmatically determined.
>
> (http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#
> identify-purpose)
>
>
>
> in 1.3.4 we have tried to define a smaller, more testable set.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:16
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
>
>
>
> AWK:
>
> > If I use HTML in a “living standard” way today and include all of the
> appropriate meanings/purposes that are defined, but then HTML adds
> meanings, how will I be able to handle my conformance? I haven’t changed
> the site, but the list changes. We can’t leave that open-ended.
>
>
>
> As per Michael’s email on the other thread: Conformance is at a particular
> date, so it’s the standard at the time.
>
>
>
> This was one of the reasons that the W3C has tried to ‘version’ HTML
> though, so your conformance could also reference a specific version, e.g:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/html52/sec-forms.html#autofill-field
> <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%7C1a91d1adbbec4a5f136108d559e88c25%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513777735429494&sdata=KaptVuMMuXLmJ4IPdDuZTIRdkM9A6P0PPEjys0vUmiA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion