- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:05:08 -0500
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: "Alex Li (CELA)" <alli@microsoft.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbnGpZ6yTSc8rkUtAziPcVZLyQAJnJm3RtCj9SW6rSX8g@mail.gmail.com>
To riff off of Alex and Andrew, how about something like this? In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying the <a>meaning</a> for form input data, for each input field about the user 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. Note: The "meaning" is a description of a field name found in the table HTML 5.2 table of 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> I would also be ok substituting, as was done in an earlier draft, "autofill" instead of "identifying the expected meaning for form input data" which is pretty hard to understand. As a sidebar. The HTML list is more granular with several "meanings" for each of our "purposes" in a number of categories. That means that these additional autofill attributes will be required when that the corresponding form field is present on a page. I'm OK with that but thought we should have them documented on the list. "honorific-prefix" "given-name" "additional-name" "family-name" "honorific-suffix" "nickname" "username" "new-password" "current-password" "address-line1" "address-line2" "address-line3" "address-level4" "address-level3" "address-level2" "address-level1" "cc-given-name" "cc-additional-name" "cc-family-name" "impp" "tel-country-code" "tel-national" "tel-area-code" "tel-local" "tel-local-prefix" "tel-local-suffix" Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 2:11 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 >
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 22:05:33 UTC