Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

John, the testing is determined at the technique level, right? So if 
someone is using a sufficient technique that specifies html5 autofill, the 
testing is going to be based on that. Other technologies may have a 
different range of specified values and they would similarly have testing 
based on that technique. So the technology, through the Sufficient 
Techniques, will determine the scope for testing. 

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:   John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
To:     "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc:     "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>, Andrew Kirkpatrick 
<akirkpat@adobe.com>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Marc 
Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2018-01-12 12:31 PM
Subject:        Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?



Jason,

Your point is taken, but we also need, as Alex Li noted, to know when to 
'stop' testing (today and in 3 years time), and so we need to reference 
that "list" somehow. 

Additionally, unless we change the normative requirements for Conformance 
statements to also reference external dependant specifications, a dated 
conformance claim that purports to meet a WCAG 2.1 SC that has a "living 
standard" component to it means that the conformance claim *could* become 
invalid if the supporting non-milestoned spec changes - something we need 
to acknowledge and "protect against" for legal reasons. (Having our 
specification be the de facto legal requirements is a double-edged sword 
unfortunately).

JF

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:19 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
I think efforts to insist on a fixed and normative list of terms or 
concepts stated in the WCAG specification would move us away from the 
notion of technology-independent guidelines that are designed to apply to 
changing technical capabilities over time, as exemplified by 1.3.1 and 
4.1.2. I’m not supportive of this direction of development for WCAG.
 
From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) [mailto:Jake.Abma@ing.nl] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 3:15 PM
To: 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'John Foliot' <
john.foliot@deque.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Marc Johlic <
marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
I see and get your point, doesn’t make it more easy… J but this is also 
the same for 4.1.2 as mentioned before where we judge new components on 
new roles, states and values when they become conventional.
 
Or do we have another case with 4.1.2 except that we would like a fixed 
minimum list to start with?
 
(mind blowing..)
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:08
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>; 'John Foliot' <
john.foliot@deque.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Marc Johlic <
marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
So the way to make it more stable is to allow the set of terms to change 
in technologies that change even faster than our spec does?  I’m not 
following the reasoning…
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

 
From: "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 15:01
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, John Foliot <
john.foliot@deque.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Marc Johlic <
marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
That could be true but I think we would like our SC as stable as possible 
and not change with every new release!
 
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:00
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>; 'John Foliot' <
john.foliot@deque.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Marc Johlic <
marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
Don’t forget that like HTML we are planning to update WCAG more regularly 
also.
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

 
From: "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 14:57
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org
>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <
akirkpat@adobe.com>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
 
Looking at it from a bit more distance I just have a gut feeling we do 
need a fixed minimum list, I guess most of us agree.
But also it feels not right to point to HTML 5.2 although it is the best 
choice for this moment because it may be this moment only.
Referring to old/outdated specs (5.2 will become outdated) are weakening 
this SC day by day while we would like it to strengthen in time.
 
Can’t we add something like “the latest version of the HTML spec at the 
time of building / testing”.
This way you’ll judge it in the moment of time and this will create growth 
possibilities.
 
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: vrijdag 12 januari 2018 20:14
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <
akirkpat@adobe.com>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <
w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
Hi Jason,
 
I think I will have to agree to disagree. One way of avoiding this new SC 
altogether could be to state that your conformance claim is based on HTML 
4.1 and thus "not supported". We need a fixed normative minimum list, and 
whether we point to the list in HTML 5.2, or include that list directly in 
our Recommendation I still maintain that without the fixed and stable 
list, it will be very difficult to test and make assertions toward. As 
Alex Li noted on the call the other day, testers will also need to know 
when to 'stop' testing (i.e. when they reach the end of the list), and 
that list cannot be changing over time.
 
JF
 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:05 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
You can handle the conformance by specifying HTML 5.1, (substituting the 
appropriate version) in the “list of Web content technologies relied upon” 
in any conformance claim. Using HTML in a “living standard” way doesn’t 
require you to omit a version number – or, for that matter, a range of 
version numbers – from any assertion of conformance as of a given date.
 
Thus, I think that without an explicit list of form fields, a success 
criterion along the lines that I wrote in response to Andrew’s proposal 
for 1.3.4 remains reliably testable.
 
 
From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 1:55 PM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; White, Jason J <
jjwhite@ets.org>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>; 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.
 
​+1!​
 
 
> MG:  If something gets deprecated in 5.2, my page based on 5.1 is going 
to continue to use that deprecated element until such time as I update the 
page. How is this different?
 
Personally, think there remains a bit of a gap here regarding conformance 
statements, an area WCAG 2.0 is (IMHO) a little weak on. Specifically, 
we've never really talked about (that I know of) this point or idea of 
dated and referenced conformance claims as we progress along the 
dot-release path. I agree with your perception here, but unless we have 
that documented, it is a subjective opinion (I may agree with it, but I 
also believe it is still an opinion). This is also related to the other 
discussion (which we've re-shelved per Andrew's request) w.r.t. the 
Landmarks Failure Technique and any other new Techniques for 2.0.
 
Perhaps this is an area of further discussion for the WG once we finalize 
the immediate tasks in front of us? (i.e. a potential topic for a CSUN F2F 
session?)
 
 
> AC: As per Michael’s email on the other thread: Conformance is at a 
particular date, so it’s the standard at the time.
 
WCAG 2.0 states:
Required Components of a Conformance Claim
Conformance claims are not required. Authors can conform to WCAG 2.0 
without making a claim. However, if a conformance claim is made, then the 
conformance claim must include the following information:
1.    Date of the claim
2.    Guidelines title, version and URI "Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines 2.0 at http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/"
3.    Conformance level satisfied: (Level A, AA or AAA)
4.    A concise description of the Web pages, such as a list of URIs for 
which the claim is made, including whether subdomains are included in the 
claim.
Note 1: The Web pages may be described by list or by an expression that 
describes all of the URIs included in the claim.
Note 2: Web-based products that do not have a URI prior to installation on 
the customer's Web site may have a statement that the product would 
conform when installed.
5.    A list of the Web content technologies relied upon.
 
...which brings us back to the 'problem' that Techniques are not "...the 
standard at the time..." because they are not dated or normative or 
attached to a particular version of WCAG - there is no "time" associated 
to them. We can fix that problem, but it exists today.
 
Likewise for any "list" that we want to 'import' from another W3C Rec. - 
we need a dated and referenceable Recommendation for today, for tomorrow, 
or in 2028.  For conformance claims, we need "snapshots" or milestone 
releases that do not change, so that they can be referenced directly in 
the Claim "forever". 
 
> AC: This was one of the reasons that the W3C has tried to ‘version’ HTML 
though, so your conformance could also reference a specific version
 
Exactly. Pointing to a specific version of HTML5 allows that referenceable 
feature. @gowerm, if any of these autofill values were to be deprecated 
down the road, I'm willing to bet that the browsers will still support 
them (unless there is a critical security issue or similar catastrophic 
failure being introduced - at which point we'd likely have to amend our 
Rec too), because the browsers do not want to deliberately "break" legacy 
content. Meanwhile, if the list were to expand, those new additions would 
either be Best Practices, or we would need to re-address the SC (or 
augment it somehow) to add those new token values.
 
JF
 
​
 
 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> 
wrote:
If something gets deprecated in 5.2, my page based on 5.1 is going to 
continue to use that deprecated element until such time as I update the 
page. How is this different?

4.1.2 does not define a spec for name, role or value.


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:        Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, "White, Jason J" <
jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:        2018-01-12 10:05 AM
Subject:        Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

 
If not referenced in the SC, then the conformance can change.
 
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.
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

 
From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:58
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
I agree with Jason.  I like having HTML 5.2 (or any standard) for a stake 
in the ground, but I think we can get around having that in the actual SC 
language as Jason describes..   We can reference it in the Understanding. 
 
-Marc
 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 12:55 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
No, I think it’s testable in that it only applies to the field types 
supported by the technology being used.
 
From:Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:53 PM
To: White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>; 
WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
Jason,
My concern is that without attaching a reference to a defined list this 
becomes untestable.
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

 
From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:51
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, Marc Johlic <
marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
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.
 
From:Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 12:29 PM
To: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?
 
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 namesmust expose that meaning except if the technology 
being used does not support a corresponding autofill meaning.
 
What do people think?
 
Thanks,
AWK
 
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 
 
akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

 
From: Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:03
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <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> 
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.

AWK


   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
   >
   > 
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.ukcarpe diem
 
 


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or 
confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom 
it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or 
take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and 
delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 

Thank you for your compliance.

 


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or 
confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom 
it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or 
take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and 
delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 

Thank you for your compliance.

 
 


 
-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
 
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or 
confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom 
it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or 
take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and 
delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
 
Thank you for your compliance.



 
-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com
 
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the 
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or 
disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message 
immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the 
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or 
disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message 
immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the 
intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or 
disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message 
immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or 
confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom 
it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail 
in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or 
take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and 
delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.

Thank you for your compliance.




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

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion