RE: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

Most of this thread happened after-hours for me, coming back and reviewing the whole thing my preference would be Jake’s version because it creates an Appropriate separation from the technology by using a listing of purposes.

If WCAG specifies the list of purposes rather than linking to HTML5.x directly, it:

  *   Doesn’t have to include all of the HTML ones, minimising the author burden to the most relevant ones. Also, if HTML adds more of them, they would not be included automatically.

  *   Could add techniques for aria/coga personalisation at a later stage with less fuss, transitioning from or extending the HTML list more easily.

  *   Can put the ‘for this user’ aspect in the list rather than the SC text.  (In my mind the ‘purpose’ for most of the fields is to apply to the user of the website only, so shouldn’t apply when doing it on someone else’s behalf.)

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Abma, J.D. (Jake)

My suggestion for "Support Common Input Fields":

“For the list of common input fields that are supported by the technology for specifying the purpose of specific types, the purpose can be programmatically determined.”

Note: It is not expected that every technology supports the same list. Content implemented using a technology that supports a subset are  excepted for fields that are not supported while a technology that supports a superset are encouraged to implement additional meanings.