Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

But it might be that there is another way to accomplish this in HTML (aria-coga) down the road. Putting the autofill value into the autocomplete attribute is the expected technique, but isn’t required by either version of the language.

I can go either way, I think that Mike Gower may have felt more strongly about it.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 14:16
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<mailto: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%7Cc95b4c59d7b4465e1d7608d559f0fd65%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636513813957033548&sdata=QwrCqq2T%2BMZ%2BtWmGOW58Q48pD60jA%2FsQh3AfHQT4q6M%3D&reserved=0>

From: Alex Li <alli@microsoft.com<mailto:alli@microsoft.com>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:54
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 10:26 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 13:16
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion