Re: Unsupported Autofill values and Common Purpose

​Hi David,


>  We reference HTML 5.2. Jurisdiction B implements a law or policy
requiring WCAG 2.1 ... hundreds or thousands of web sites go back over all
their form fields and add these at great expense.


Strawman argument. When the US government 'updated' Section 508, they added
a grandfather clause that permits legacy content to remain as is, unless it
is otherwise updated - it is at *that* point that accessibility
requirements must be updated to WCAG 2.0. Do you have any evidence or
examples of jurisdictions being unreasonable in their "ramp-up" to enhanced
standards support? My experience is that entities are actually given "too
much" time to transition, and not enough time, but I leave open the
possibility that this isn't a universal experience.

Additionally, even complex and complicated websites do not have complex and
complicated forms on every page, and the practical reality is that most
forms today will likely only be asking for the values that *are* robustly
supported, which is approximately half of the full set. And helper tools
are supporting more than that today.

>  HTML 5.3 comes out and 10 of the 50 get dropped.


Highly unlikely, give that HTML 5.3 is currently a Working Draft (
https://www.w3.org/TR/html53/) that still has all 53 tokens included. Note
as well that while many of us bemoan the fact that there are 2 HTML
standards (W3C, WHAT WG), that is today's reality, and I highly suspect
that the WHAT WG spec isn't going to remove those token values any time
soon.

Additionally, it is important to remember that browser support for legacy
code traditionally remains (see here:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/blink), so while
it *MAY* be possible to see some of these values disappear from the spec,
supported values (the ones that won't go away) will continue to be
supported by the browsers in a backwards-compatable way.

The only actual concern I see then is referencing a list of values in an
external spec - and that concern was raised last week. WCAG 2.1 *could*
return to including the "list" in our spec, as we were doing previously,
and that would stop any potential 3rd-party "re-writing" of our spec down
the road, but remember as well that to meet Exit Criteria we need to show
two independant examples of these token values being supported today, so
for them to get "into" WCAG 2.1, we'll already have demonstrable support
(both for WCAG, but also for HTML 5.*x*), and I've already found at least one
tool that does so today
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_Implementations/JF/research#3rd-Party_Applications>.
So I see this as a non-issue going forward.

JF



On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:11 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
wrote:

> ​Hmmm...
>
> Let's kick this around a bit ... what this might look like.
>
> We reference HTML 5.2. Jurisdiction B implements a law or policy requiring
> WCAG 2.1 ... hundreds or thousands of web sites go back over all their form
> fields and add these at great expense.
>
> HTML 5.3 comes out and 10 of the 50 get dropped. Then in WCAG 2.2 we want
> to update the list. We cannot because we can't be backwards compatible....
> so until Silver comes out authors are forced to use these antiquated
> tokens...
>
> This is a very realistic scenario.
>
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>
> 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 Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:59 AM, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
> josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
>
>> John Foliot wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to step back from the fatalistic scenarios.
>>
>> +1 to this. The fact that these SCs have made it this far to CR
>> practically demonstrates their considerable  robustness and potential. So I
>> urge the group to err on the side of collaborative optimism and continue on
>> with the good work.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> Joshue O Connor
>> Director | InterAccess.ie
>>
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion