Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?

+1 to Alastair, and I appreciate his insight. Katie your concerns are noted. 
Actually, focus on user need is the core of all our concerns. 
InterAccess - Accessible UX
-------- Original message --------From: Katie Haritos-Shea <> Date: 24/02/2018  01:09  (GMT+00:00) To: Alastair Campbell <> Cc: "lisa.seeman" <>, John Foliot <>, WCAG <> Subject: Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not? 
Bottom line: I think you may be right....:-)
I am just concerned that we remain vigilant about the why, and keep that focus on the user need meant to be  addressed by this SC now....
* katie * Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP CPACC+WAS = CPWACell: 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 Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Alastair Campbell <> wrote:

The context of use and necessity of this SC is very different - and therefore this should be rethought with that user context in mind.

Only if the requirement for the content is different, in this case the requirement is the same (programmatic association for particular inputs).

> At the very least 'the meaning of' should be removed from the stem.

But that is what is needed to fulfil the requirement when specifying it in as technology-agnostic way as possible. (Which is admittedly difficult in this example due to the reliance on the HTML5

> The text of the SC should reflect the intention of the requirement - that is, to assist users in populating commonly used form input data.

In which case we need to overhaul the rest of WCAG! Where (in the SC text) does 1.3.1 talk about headings? Or 1.1.1 talk about being able to see images? Or 2.1.1 talk about switch access? That
 info goes in the understanding doc.
Bottom line: If we were sitting down to start this SC from scratch, I think we’d get to the same place because that is the requirement for the

Received on Saturday, 24 February 2018 11:54:41 UTC