Re: Use of ARIA to satisfy 'Identify common purpose' SC

Hi Lisa (or anyone else who knows)

How do the new personalization semantics of coga-* vs uia-* relate to one
another.

Is UIA-field just an update to COGA-field or is there something new
happening here?

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 Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:03 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Longer term the idea is to use the personalisation semantics, which is to
> one side of ARIA:
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/personalization-semantics-
> content-1.0/#field-explanation
>
>
>
> E.g.
>
> <input type="text" name="fname" *aui-field="phone"*/>
>
>
>
> But that’s hot off the press (13th Feb), not sure about support yet.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Joshue O Connor - InterAccess
>
>
>
> Yeah - thanks Alastair and David. Good feedback both.
> The reason I ask is that a lot of people will think that they can add just
> add ARIA to satisfy this SC
> and in some cases, as David mentions for inputs, it may be doable but in
> others not.
>
> Good catch both about the AccName and the label - and we don't want that
> to be overridden etc.
>
> IMO We'll need to be clear in our materials about where ARIA anti-patterns
> would not satisfy this SC.
>
> Thanks
>
> Josh
>
>
>