W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2018

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

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:59:15 +0000
To: "Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com" <Brooks.Newton@thomsonreuters.com>, "ryladog@gmail.com" <ryladog@gmail.com>, "jon.avila@levelaccess.com" <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
CC: "david100@sympatico.ca" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, "lisa.seeman@zoho.com" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3EA00B67-B483-4FA6-81AD-BBE3C0AE6AD9@nomensa.com>
Katie wrote:
>  are folks wanting to have a new SC that just says 'always use HTML 5.2 autocomplete attribute on forms' and identify the SC as Autocomplete, instead of trying to stuff 'purpose of control' metadata via this attribute as well?

Brooks wrote:
> 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.

There is no requirement (accessibility wise) for people to use autocomplete. Nor is the primary reason for it to be used as a method of auto-completing. That’s a nice side-benefit.

It is the first mention, foot-in-the-door, first ‘nugget’ of personalisation. It is a type of meta-data that is already there and supported (for other reasons), that could be used to add icons to common form controls.

>  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

Lisa (and others) have been working on it for years, with (AFAICT) little or no uptake from the wider web community. It is a chicken and egg situation, until there’s a requirement the conversation won’t start, without the conversation happening there is no motivation to create the user-agents needed to use it (going wider than autofill).

> that has limited support at best and significant costs of adoption

That has reasonable support for its current purpose, and very little cost of adoption by web authors.

> including the unforeseen consequences of shoehorning the autocomplete attribute for purposes other than what that spec was intended to cover.

Adding an icon to a field about the user’s data aligns very well with autofilling the user’s data. It also provides additional rational for people to actually use it.



Received on Thursday, 22 February 2018 11:59:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:22 UTC