Re: Possible wording for 1.3.4?

I could live with it

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 Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:32 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>