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

+1

That’s my concern as well, Katie.  This SC was not intended to serve as a mandate for content authors to implement autocomplete for the purpose of automatically filling out content on forms. We didn’t get a lot of time to mull over the nuances of requiring the autocomplete attribute on relevant inputs when it was introduced fairly late in the draft stage (was it in December?) of our process.

I am a strong proponent of supporting a user’s capacity to personalize the stated purpose of controls  in Web content.  But, I believe we owe content authors and end users alike, a greater standard of care in ratifying Success Criteria than what we have exercised to this point with this SC.  There have got to be better ways to initiate discussion in the larger Web community regarding the importance of supporting content personalization, than to start conversation with a Level AA requirement that has limited support at best and significant costs of adoption, including the unforeseen consequences of shoehorning the autocomplete attribute for purposes other than what that spec was intended to cover.

Brooks



From: Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:12 PM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: Alastair Campbell; Newton, Brooks (Legal); david100@sympatico.ca; josh@interaccess.ie; lisa.seeman@zoho.com; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Use of ARIA to satisfy 'Identify common purpose' SC

Or, are folks wanting to have a new SC that just says 'always use HTML 5.2 automcomplete attribute on forms' and identify the SC as Autocomplete, instead of trying to stuff 'purpose of control' metadata via this attribute as well?


* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect

WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_cpwacertificants&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=aS1WowZIuKakjeMd5OQ5XEBi1tbZo63t_9gWXQ3mWws&s=Dyd8n--g0HdUBH8bOgCU01gyhFyRPXPB0tKdxAxe8Vg&e=>

Cell: 703-371-5545<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_katieharitosshea_&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=aS1WowZIuKakjeMd5OQ5XEBi1tbZo63t_9gWXQ3mWws&s=b-7hdjzwq-EIJFQYBKIU9p_gT-GMHijPmNFFpzzkoz4&e=>

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 Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 12:59 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:
Here is what I am missing. We already have autocomplete in HTML. It is not going away. It is an awesome feature of HTML. It does and will help us all.

What this SC is doing is trying to force authors to do something more than already exists in the HTML - by making developers provide a value for each and every form field on their pages to enable some version of a secondary purpose name - above and beyond the accessible name.


* katie *

Katie Haritos-Shea
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect

WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWA<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.accessibilityassociation.org_cpwacertificants&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=aS1WowZIuKakjeMd5OQ5XEBi1tbZo63t_9gWXQ3mWws&s=Dyd8n--g0HdUBH8bOgCU01gyhFyRPXPB0tKdxAxe8Vg&e=>

Cell: 703-371-5545<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_katieharitosshea_&d=DwMFaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=aS1WowZIuKakjeMd5OQ5XEBi1tbZo63t_9gWXQ3mWws&s=b-7hdjzwq-EIJFQYBKIU9p_gT-GMHijPmNFFpzzkoz4&e=>

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 Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>> wrote:

  *   I think there is an advantage to showing some progress (however small), which prompts the conversation

I agree Alistair, having autocomplete also benefits users who have difficulty entering text including those on mobile, users of speech who may not want to speak private information in public, and users who may not be able to recall all the details of zipcodes, etc.   So while it doesn’t fully address the issue it provides benefit to a wide range of users with different types of disabilities not just users with cognitive and learning disabilities.

Jonathan

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:53 AM
To: Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com<mailto:Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>; ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>; josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>; lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Use of ARIA to satisfy 'Identify common purpose' SC

Well, the question is then whether we have something in, or pretty much nothing.

I think there is an advantage to showing some progress (however small), which prompts the conversation

As I mentioned in IRC on the last call: having this (AA) SC starts a new chapter in our accessibility training materials, we haven't had non-screenreader metadata previously.

Cognitive has been all about Plain English and UCD so far, this gives us a chance to talk through the reasoning for personalisation and what should come in future.

-Alastair


From: Brooks.Newton

+1

I’m with Katie on this point.

Brooks

From: Katie Haritos-Shea

Yep, that is what I am saying. Put off these two SCs, redo SC to address the user need, and point to a spec designed to do just that, when that is ready-ish