Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?

I’m struggling to see in what way the SC text (rather than understand) needs updating?

It got so narrowed to only use autocomplete, it is just an update of the reasoning behind it (in the understanding) that is needed...

The meta-data aspect is needed, it is the rational behind it (which isn’t in the SC text, barring the handle) that needs to change to catch up.

-Alastair

Apologies for typos, sent from a mobile.
________________________________
From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:01:13 PM
To: Alastair Campbell
Cc: lisa.seeman; John Foliot; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org
Subject: Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?

Alastair,

Of course I believe you, and I did read the minutes of today's COGA TF, which I know does not always show the richness of the discussion.

If the COGA TF thinks this meets the requirements of one of their other identified user needs, and I think it certainly could, for helping those with memory challenges, then the SC should be redone, to address 'that' user problem - not the personalization issue - and drop the whole metadata tokens rationale. All the support information around it needs to address that, the user memory cognitive impairments issue.

The COGA minutes seemed to say that 1.3.4 does not help personalization, so that SC  should be identified as doing so.


* 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<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto: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 1:42 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi John, Katie,

John - I know it *could* apply to autofil, but currently it doesn’t.

Katie, sorry I missed your suggestion, lots of long emails recently.

On the topic, the COGA TF brought many, many needs to the table that resulted in around 30 potential SC.

No, this doesn’t address them all, and is *very* limited for personalisation. However, it does fulfil *a* need that severely impacts people with cognitive impairments (e.g. credit card entry).

If you don’t believe me, please ask Lisa or EA who were on the call today and were very enthusiastic about it.

Plus, the impact on developers is hardly huge (for the autofil one). It is a few attributes that Google already promotes as best-practice. This would give it extra leverage.
Cheers,

-Alastair

Apologies for typos, sent from a mobile.
________________________________
From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 6:08:16 PM
To: Alastair Campbell
Cc: lisa.seeman; John Foliot; W3c-Wai-Gl-Request@W3. Org
Subject: 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<tel:703-371-5545> | ryladog@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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