Re: Finding agreement on common purpose

Gregg,

There is a normative list, whether it is in WCAG (in which case we would need to have unique identifiers for each term that are referenceable) or in the HTML 5.2 spec.

The requirement is that when an author uses input fields in a form that they need to make sure that if any of the inputs have the same purpose as the normative list provided, then they use a technique to make that purpose be programmatically exposed.

If using our old friend the Gregorian format, which has no specified support for the conveyance of standardized purposes, the author doesn’t need to do anything to conform.

Once the Gregorian format is updated to include “firstName” and “lastName” purposes in the spec and there is accessibility support for them,  the author needs to use these in forms with first and last name inputs.

We are not saying that authors can use any list. Whatever is used needs to be aligned with the standard terms, but WCAG isn’t responsible for that alignment. Authors will need to identify the accessibility support to make sure that they are not just exposing purposes into the ether.

Related to point 5 – the list isn’t changing until WCAG changes. The list is stable.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe 

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


On 1/17/18, 00:07, "Gregg Vanderheiden GPII" <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote:

    -1   I don’t think you can say  “authors can use any list — but that won’t work  — but we will assume they will use some path of least resistance and that would work.    And that sounds like what is being said here.
    
    There are ways to make this testable and workable — so  I’m not sure why they are not being specified and done.  IT seems like it is felt it would be restrictive or something.  Not sure what.  
    
    But I think any solution has to contain the list I posted earlier  (several times) 
    
    1)  what purposes need to be marked 
    2) EXACTLY how they need to be marked (or exactly where it is described how they will be marked )(e.g. referencing some standard)
    3) if other terms are allowed — where the mapping of those terms back to the standard terms exists
    4) the mapping must be in some standard format
    5) the pointer to the mapping must be in some standard place on the page (so AT can find the pointer, find the mapping,  read the mapping and map the terms on the page back to the list of purposes required in the SC 
    
    if it can be shown how a piece of AT written today will be able to find the meanings of a page written next year  with terms defined next year in any other way — the we can talk about that.     But this is the only way I know of. 
    
    best
    
    g
         
    
    
    > On Jan 16, 2018, at 10:57 AM, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote:
    > 
    > Had a useful chat with AWK this afternoon. Whilst my concern that people could dream up their own sets of tokens remains, I can accept that given a path of least resistance, authors are unlikely to do it. In other words, happy to +1 AWK's proposed wording for this SC.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > -- 
    > @LeonieWatson @tink@toot.cafe Carpe diem
    >

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 05:33:34 UTC