Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

The last version of that is the best of the three, I think. I can live 
with that. However, I still prefer Jason's that does not tie everyone to 
the 5.2 meanings. Here they are back to back:

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 the meaning 
of the input field can be programmatically determined.

For content implemented using technologies that support specifying the 
purpose of specific types of form input fields, the purpose of each such 
field of a supported type can be programmatically determined.
 

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
To:     "Alex Li (CELA)" <alli@microsoft.com>, Alastair Campbell 
<acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc:     WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2018-01-12 11:13 AM
Subject:        Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?



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 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 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 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 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, icons, and 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 
 
-Alastair