- From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:10:46 -0500
- To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>, "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, Marc Johlic <marc.johlic@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEy-OxEjucp3YtvsLtRuws9t9051h2CiS+XCr16CXZtCU2MNSw@mail.gmail.com>
Bingo Mike,
That is right. Testing is at the technique level. SC must be testable, but
not only in one specific way.
And for the record I appear to be one of the few who don't loathe 1.3.1 or
4.1.2 (probably for obvious reasons)...
:-)
On Jan 12, 2018 4:17 PM, "Michael Gower" <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
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
<https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
V8T 5C3
<https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
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*
<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* <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>]
*Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 3:15 PM
*To:* 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>;
'John Foliot' <*john.foliot@deque.com* <john.foliot@deque.com>>; White,
Jason J <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>;
Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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… Jbut 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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>]
*Sent:* vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:08
*To:* Abma, J.D. (Jake) <*Jake.Abma@ing.nl* <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; 'John
Foliot' <*john.foliot@deque.com* <john.foliot@deque.com>>; White, Jason J <
*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>;
Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
*http://twitter.com/awkawk*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C32df36e31d2845dc5d4e08d559f9192c-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513848791103419-26sdata-3DDX-252BFa0plJO-252B855uaQdomUJN-252FLuRvTgyta3e0jNznkhw-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=gL4xsoG7FzwaB_JKU3cF8-iafBWoQ5StScPfmBjiJGA&e=>
*From: *"Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <*Jake.Abma@ing.nl* <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>
*Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 15:01
*To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>, John
Foliot <*john.foliot@deque.com* <john.foliot@deque.com>>, "White, Jason J" <
*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc: *Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>,
Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>]
*Sent:* vrijdag 12 januari 2018 21:00
*To:* Abma, J.D. (Jake) <*Jake.Abma@ing.nl* <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>; 'John
Foliot' <*john.foliot@deque.com* <john.foliot@deque.com>>; White, Jason J <
*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>;
Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
*http://twitter.com/awkawk*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Cdf107cfb7b3b4e1453e508d559f75421-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513841194260566-26sdata-3DX-252BtKbJHvJQ5hp58ajm-252BV1kRnBx-252FRoz38vHFWTS5ZGWU-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=OdLptNWJ0zPu4GXIVJt_PAhTZ0eBcTm6sudAlDhbjGo&e=>
*From: *"Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <*Jake.Abma@ing.nl* <Jake.Abma@ing.nl>>
*Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 14:57
*To: *John Foliot <*john.foliot@deque.com* <john.foliot@deque.com>>,
"White, Jason J" <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc: *Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>,
Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Marc Johlic
<*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
<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* <john.foliot@deque.com>]
*Sent:* vrijdag 12 januari 2018 20:14
*To:* White, Jason J <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>;
Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>; Marc Johlic
<*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
<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*
<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* <john.foliot@deque.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 1:55 PM
*To:* Michael Gower <*michael.gower@ca.ibm.com* <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
*Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>;
White, Jason J <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>; Marc Johlic <
*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
<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/*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252F2008-252FREC-2DWCAG20-2D20081211-252F-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DZpx93xVQXDqw9HTyE9GgSRWOIKf1VLQhnUfV-252BNYeFFk-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=OsGTVCd9vsXK4E4Fyb0xPGgSr-zhxrMqZSEC-ZCD4Gg&e=>
"
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*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252FWCAG20-252F-2523technologydef-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DSA13I5jXpDHxLKu7YYgib3lTFAYRWRN9nhZ2e6vYL0A-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=bmyPV_-nWCbjU9AaxkjfZ4Qpty_gcr7wSeeAFZySes0&e=>
*relied upon*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252FWCAG20-252F-2523reliedupondef-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DNIR1-252BHwV8QgLLEwKRdV8OXUf4gEFHmzJr2SfAosldeE-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=eBoKKu6FzgXMX8m7iMVRCFm_nrxm4nY9nH3avWVfIu8&e=>
.
...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*
<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 *
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmaps.google.com-252F-253Fq-253D1803-252BDouglas-252BStreet-252C-252BVictoria-252C-252BBC-252B-2525C2-2525A0V8T-252B5C3-2526entry-253Dgmail-2526source-253Dg-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DWdwW9i-252FmE-252Br4-252FIY8CbL2eRGvp1P3DTrGfre-252B85KvANc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=DCigOZMQx_oP-gjO4Qe-SCFDKFz60ulqXrceaI6o7b4&e=>
*V8T 5C3*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fmaps.google.com-252F-253Fq-253D1803-252BDouglas-252BStreet-252C-252BVictoria-252C-252BBC-252B-2525C2-2525A0V8T-252B5C3-2526entry-253Dgmail-2526source-253Dg-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DWdwW9i-252FmE-252Br4-252FIY8CbL2eRGvp1P3DTrGfre-252B85KvANc-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=DCigOZMQx_oP-gjO4Qe-SCFDKFz60ulqXrceaI6o7b4&e=>
*gowerm@ca.ibm.com* <gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: *(250) 220-1146* <(250)%20220-1146>* cel: *(250) 661-0098*
<(250)%20661-0098>* fax: *(250) 220-8034* <(250)%20220-8034>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>
To: Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>,
"White, Jason J" <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
Cc: WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
*http://twitter.com/awkawk*
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513801066872449-26sdata-3DkWRJQWKQ5b515lhSoBWWon1ROoEDOySE-252Ff2f2f8dFwA-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=jmjx1dk6fxGbpvkZUftO7iUtvQwgWdI2Pn5pJlzK394&s=nx5J3SLnr--B2gl988twuX9oFP2qWZ8lbHG1zflZKHg&e=>
*From: *Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
*Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:58
*To: *"White, Jason J" <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Cc: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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*
<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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 12:53 PM
*To:* White, Jason J <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>; Marc Johlic <
*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org*
<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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
*http://twitter.com/awkawk*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Cd6ddd9365f2340afe82108d559e61973-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513767211470990-26sdata-3D0pLgccc5eXldfA-252BrBDpNp6nNeOYT64pJHz5ffOnTWT4-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3Di1atiYmACZynEV620J6l6fuFK7qiks6Mb4LxoQps4lc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=U%2B6Ls31roH%2FFxh9O31K7ilrJkw6VzeyPAcZBboj5TE4%3D&reserved=0>
*From: *"White, Jason J" <*jjwhite@ets.org* <jjwhite@ets.org>>
*Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:51
*To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>, Marc
Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>, WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>]
*Sent:* Friday, January 12, 2018 12:29 PM
*To:* Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>; WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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 names*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252Fhtml52-252Fsec-2Dforms.html-2523autofill-2Dfield-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjjwhite-2540ets.org-257C99e76206120a43d0157708d559e214d4-257C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65-257C0-257C0-257C636513749899118798-26sdata-3DYIsK5eWlo1OU-252BXq-252BdOXr245xRPZEfIvd5o6LCBeCjL0-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DuFjRO94bHtuTYc3ZqqNn259qtZiCSzfWRAxSY7Y_FBg%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=%2F%2B9U66iP8cNsQjZbv39Jq7%2F9d1elGzB5demYSoQGT%2FQ%3D&reserved=0>must
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* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
*http://twitter.com/awkawk*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257Ce6416acb90d34228707808d559e5143a-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513762788513280-26sdata-3DK2Pxk9EKsIqq42wTAblO1HC6NdU-252BKZZKiLCqWaUHMno-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DapUOTb1RjezIb461EUkfLLg-s4YZIpkTFmoJF-kbKg4%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=nfDIiMiaOscm3g7WlEkvkr%2BRTwcdsZLmbg79bdkLd1k%3D&reserved=0>
*From: *Marc Johlic <*marc.johlic@gmail.com* <marc.johlic@gmail.com>>
*Date: *Friday, January 12, 2018 at 12:03
*To: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>>, WCAG <
*w3c-wai-gl@w3.org* <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*
<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*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fwww.w3.org-252FTR-252Fhtml52-252Fsec-2Dforms.html-2523autofill-2Dfield-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DToUIE6G-252FsKjrtn5JMEwM9hTps6iMOc6BtZwokR8IAzI-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DKwhRWsNCxJLmPtTZSk__WqkmNiIbl094ZPTvDGD2kkU%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=512sLu4PaWmg41nXbZJLTcEfx44OGAjT7r3zpfoS%2B%2BY%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*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Frawgit.com-252Fw3c-252Fwcag21-252F1.3.4-5Fautofill-252Fguidelines-252Findex.html-2523identify-2Dcommon-2Dpurpose-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DVHpV4ttfM7I2-252FFKZW6SCulpl8NgMOw-252BtZ2-252BRHugkCtE-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3DYjp5j5hVz3iy85qva1keCGGlHeirevH2uVUoUmq3eR8%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=p%2BvOPHPIynFHQJ7enm4eXak4gG477rs8vLlaAnPCOfU%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* <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*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C6fb521158e4c4022002908d559d1ba79-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636513679887347881-26sdata-3DLG6X-252BPhGvkisWjEcmBqgBy-252FteFAEl9tq2izWdcwmbio-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3D61z0SOgNS_ugr3TpfSDFaxVPRZMKiPvZv2ekRdSXjbQ%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=cCOPctP7Fzs8zOgICnvroI0zE%2FSccEYdPqLy6KIW0z0%3D&reserved=0>
>
--
@LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe *tink.uk*
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftink.uk-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cakirkpat-2540adobe.com-257C77857df5a72447614ae208d559de604e-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C1-257C636513733998117846-26sdata-3DYtaWXq9SN2FjUMQYnIAGmvalPT6-252FHQxYEoBJO37shP0-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3Djf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg%26r%3D_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc%26m%3DjIERTA7hqsqdWVgv_Tk9IHX9WbpseUmdoVj3QrWfXGg%26s%3D48EzoMKMcsyu9bUTUr7uNc8q_W3HfRpqpiYVquicVKA%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cfe05ec027a98467a49b608d559edfdc6%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636513801066872449&sdata=5f9jNOIFln2p3lxFteyutiSkkEMXxHTq9PLWXscj2Fw%3D&reserved=0>carpe
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* <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* <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* <john.foliot@deque.com>
Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 12 January 2018 22:11:13 UTC