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

The difference between using the HTML 5.2 autocomplete and using
Semantics is ... the problem is not limited to forms.

The original user need, as identified by the COGA TF, is about providing
user-preferred references for identifying the purpose of controls, symbols,
and other user interface elements/components.

HTML already has autocomplete, and its growing support, for  assisting all
users in filling out common form fields. That is a very important - but
different issue.

If we want to solve the problems of cognitive (and other) issues on the web
for individuals, personalization and metadata improvements is the way, IMO.

Trying to solve the problem via an HTML forms attribute seems a stretch and
probably not the best approach. It is the wrong chicken/egg.

I am very sorry that this is the case, but to me, this whole 1.3.4/1.3.5
exersize (with all the time, discussion and hard work that has gone into
it) - identifies how we have gone 'off the rails' on addressing the
original user-needs brought to us by the task forces. Trying to get
'something' in, in time, as opposed to trying the get the right thing in.

You will find ePub and several other W3C WGs struggling with making
metadata, especially accessibility metadata, available/usable, to provide
the 'right' functionality for a given USER group. This has been a problem
trying to be solved, by several standards organizations, for much more than
a decade. This is a problem the W3C needs to find a solution to overall.
Personalization is the same issue-ish but is more discrete, in that the
solution needs to provide the 'right' functionality for a given USER.

This 2.1 'requirement' would/will be putting the weight of the work, for
microscopically addressing the metadata issue, on developers via an HTML
attribute, via their accessibility requirements - not via a spec
specifically designed to provide metadata functionality. IMO, this iterative
 accessibility WCAG version shouldn't be shouldering this web-wide issue -
especially in a rushed fashion. Developers may loathe us, and
accessibility, more.

Fatalistic? Maybe. It also just might be best to say this particular SC
isn't ready - and rethink for the future.

Does WCAG 2.1 have to be perfect? No, but it really has to be good. Each SC
we release.

This is my concern.

This stuff is really really really hard.....

** katie **

*Katie Haritos-Shea*
*Principal ICT Accessibility Architect *

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *
<>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile

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 Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM, David MacDonald <>

> Thanks for the clarification.
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
> LinkedIn
> <>
> GitHub <>
> <>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
>> wrote:
>> lisa.seeman wrote:
>> Hi
>> AUI is the replacement for the coga prefex. People wanted for a wider use
>> case then accessibility for cognitive.
>> You can see the latest version of the specification
>> published version:
>> ization-semantics-content-1.0/editor's draft:
>> Thanks for that Lisa - I like the aui-prefix as a 'same but different'
>> flag for devs to at least see 'hey this is one of the thinks that will help
>> satisfy that SC'.
>> --
>> Joshue O Connor
>> Director |

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 01:19:53 UTC