Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

Andrew,

My preference would be for your #1 or my proposal.

I'm not keen on your version #2, as we also need to be fairly direct in
what we want here, which is to support auto-filling of form inputs
(somehow): i.e. "autofill" is somewhat critical to the understanding of
this SC, so I wouldn't want to lose that.

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> I like that version Alex. A few tweaks in line with John’s:
>
>
>
> 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://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%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=XRbdqxqP8ZK6sblYsmHoYOwbcLFZuiEs6zZ07udO%2Br4%3D&reserved=0>
> is used, the meaning of the equivalent input fields can be programmatically
> determined.
>
>
>
> Changed:
>
> In content implemented using technologies with support for autofilling
> form inputs, for each input field that has a purpose that maps to any of
> 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%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=XRbdqxqP8ZK6sblYsmHoYOwbcLFZuiEs6zZ07udO%2Br4%3D&reserved=0>
> the meaning of the input field can be programmatically determined.
>
>
>
> Or, to step away from “autofill” a bit:
>
> In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying
> the expected meaning for form input data, for each input field that has a
> purpose that maps to any of 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%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=XRbdqxqP8ZK6sblYsmHoYOwbcLFZuiEs6zZ07udO%2Br4%3D&reserved=0>
> the meaning of the input field can be programmatically determined.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>
> *Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:54
> *To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Alastair Campbell <
> acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
>
>
>
> 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://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%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=XRbdqxqP8ZK6sblYsmHoYOwbcLFZuiEs6zZ07udO%2Br4%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fmaster%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html%23dfn-user-interface-components&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=aShpbJxNlVln6eAEUJg6nk8lPkPB%2BjdXstjbGKIILp4%3D&reserved=0>,
> icons, and regions
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fmaster%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html%23dfn-regions&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=k1pms5bzqxOapQWfkpzlGPeYKyudC%2BaHJjvKCQaBxRI%3D&reserved=0> can
> be programmatically determined.
>
> (http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html#
> identify-purpose
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frawgit.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fmaster%2Fguidelines%2Findex.html%23identify-purpose&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=m3MxLxENUGRWUi7Zr%2Fvv2uJp9Lqg4Wk8gDkTvNR7T%2Bs%3D&reserved=0>
> )
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fawkawk&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7Cca969dfd8a4a4e21f6e408d559ede8cc%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513800714094670&sdata=sYITmzrmcIzPXaBCJCP%2BsEUsnKXwY86bLKc48kfaISA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *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