Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

All,

I still would like to push for technology agnostic language.

If I have one regret about 2.0 it is 4.1.1 not being technology agnostic.
Is it easily testable? Sure. Can we really apply it to ARIA, PDF,
scripting, etc? No. As such, is it terribly useful today?

Some would say we have 2.2 coming. Others might say, such as me, lets see
if 2.1 gets taken up. We are putting too much off IMHO

How would we have written it knowing what we know today?

** katie **

Katie Haritos-Shea

Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)

703-371-5545

ryladog@gmail.com

People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
but people will never forget how you made them feel.......

Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
dictate where we are going.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> What I’m hearing is that we are in general agreement that:
>
>    - The HTML 5.2 autofill values for the common input purposes are ok
>    and we will not include the purposes that are not input-related
>    - The list can’t change over time
>    - The purposes need to relate to the user directly, not inputs related
>    to someone else
>
>
>
> Other points that we don’t have general agreement on:
>
>    - Limit this to markup
>    - Limit this to HTML
>    - Put the list into WCAG 2.1 vs referencing the list in a
>    date-specific HTML version (e.g. 5.2)
>    - Include the “for the user” aspect in the SC text vs the list
>
>
>
> My best attempt on this this that I like is:
>
> In content implemented using technologies with support for identifying the
> expected meaning for form input data, for each user-specific input field
> that has a purpose that maps to any of the [link]HTML 5.2 Autofill field
> names,  the meaning of the input field can be programmatically determined.
>
>
>
> The reasons I like this relate to the items that we don’t have general
> agreement on:
>
>    1. Not limited to any technology, as technologies like PDF and mobile
>    frameworks and software evolve this can still be applied.
>    2. Same as #1 above
>    3. If we put it into our spec, we are adding to our localization
>    burden, understanding burden, editorial burden, and will deal with the “add
>    this to WCAG’s list” questions. Referencing the external list, stable and
>    date-bound, makes sense to me. External standards (read EN 301 549) that
>    incorporate WCAG 2.1 SC won’t need to worry about also adding the list
>    because it is referenced.
>    4. “the user” is part of the SC and it is not going to get lost as
>    part of a separate list. And, since I’m linking to the external list, we
>    need to add it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Date: *Monday, January 15, 2018 at 12:25
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "Abma, J.D. (Jake)" <
> Jake.Abma@ing.nl>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, "
> lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>,
> Amihai Miron <amihai@user1st.com>
> *Subject: *Re: Dealy in "Common Purposes"
>
>
>
> Hi Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> > With it focusing on HTML’s autofill attributes, there has been
> widespread browser support for years
>
> Yes absolutely... further in
>
> ​my
>
>  email I suggested that we consider limiting the SC to HTML.
>
> ​With each of Gregg's questions the only clear answer I was able to come
> up with was HTML autofill.​ However, Léonie is making a good case against
> referencing HTML directly and sticking with our list in the spec... I think
> Lisa would rather also prefer our list instead of referencing HMTL 5.2 ...
> so ...
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> I would like to see a more robust answer to Gregg's questions other than
> implementations are in place and coming... so far I haven't seen an
> explanation of how this will work, and the implementations I've seen seem
> to be general personalization widgets rather than an implementation of a
> set of form fields with a mapping functionality back to our common
> purposes...
>
>
>
> Here are Gregg's questions:
>
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
>  how are different languages and different taxonomies being handled?
>
>
>
> how does the AT find the mapping of new terms back to the definitions in
> WCAG?
>
> ·  how does AT know the format of the map?
>
> ·  it is machine readable?
>
> ·  how does the AT find that map?
>
> =====
>
>
>
> Are you saying
>
> schema
>
> ​,​
>
> microdata
>
> ​,​
>
>  COGA attributes will all map back to our numbered list
>
> ​ in these mapping documents that sit in the AT? If there are currently no
> implementations of this, is it reasonable to at least provide a step by
> step description of how it will work once implemented.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=WRXOBqloqBrswc94U1ONt5%2F49bvn20rHHYAaBT3Mkio%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=kC9KmcGh6IRtN5wVoLzpX6miG5rId7I8lN1u7BdVLtg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=I1Uxffq2csz%2FQbYD%2B6iskRfkZkJWvu2EYN1llqtlbRA%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=xUstg6t4u63kO9B5u3jxA9PjzgLWPOuBrO6R2LDI%2BXE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=Yfel9lmu92Kav5LOuwSxD410uDtvAJGbku%2F%2FuLM2tIg%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> *> *I share Gregg's concerns about the speculative nature of an SC that
> has no existing AT to make use of it
>
>
>
> Huh? With it focusing on HTML’s autofill attributes, there has been
> widespread browser support for years:
>
> https://caniuse.com/#search=autofil
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcaniuse.com%2F%23search%3Dautofil&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C0592f609a08942953cf808d55c3ceb76%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636516339077263984&sdata=moiMm4vKZuW73WknjxWdn56CFeE5TMtT1V4v6WJ0VGA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Lisa also posted about a couple user-agent side implementations of the
> meta-data aspects, and 5 sites that are or will be using the more extended
> set now.
>
>
>
> Microdata is also standardised, but we seem to have dropped the
> non-autofil purposes, so I’ll stop there.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>