Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?

Well, I think changing the SC to autocomplete was brought up by me.

But in any case, I am not for it personally, for the reasons I identified
in the other email thread called 'Use of ARIA to satisfy 'Identify common
purpose' SC' - it will not address the original user need brought to us by
COGA, at all - and it adds a burden for developers - without it going in
the direction of the technology that we 'do' need to inject accessibility
metadata for personalization into web content.

We can suggest authors use the features of HTML 5+ that were designed for
and by default do improve accessibility for different populations. The
HTML  autocomplete attribute is helpful for all in several ways, but
mandating its use as a requirement (and for the wrong reasons IMO) I am not
sure is the best idea.

** katie **

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

*WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy,* *IAAP CPACC+WAS = *
*CPWA* <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/cpwacertificants>

*Cell: **703-371-5545 <703-371-5545>** |* *ryladog@gmail.com
<ryladog@gmail.com>* *| **Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/>*

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 Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
>
>
> I had two relevant discussions about this today, firstly with the COGA TF,
> then with the few people who joined the AG call out of habit 😉
>
>
>
> The feeling from the COGA TF was that 1.3.4 is a useful SC to have, and
> helps with an issue that dis-proportionally impacts people with cognitive
> impairments.
>
>
>
> However, it is not (as I hoped) a useful starting point for
> personalisation, partly because the current tools do not support autofill
> attributes to apply icons.
>
>
>
> Lisa: please correct this if I’m not conveying that properly.
>
>
>
> Therefore John’s proposal to rename the handle of the SC should be taken
> on to avoid confusion, hopefully as an editorial change.
>
>
>
> As it is completely focused on autocompleting inputs, I’d favour:
>
>    - Auto-complete​
>
>
>
> But I’m not wedded to that term…
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>