Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?

As a newbie in this part of the standards process, it's been interesting 
watching this discussion work towards consensus.

Thanks for putting some attention on this, folks. End story for me has 
been that practically every SC has undergone such drastic revisions to its 
language that I think all authors of the Understanding documents should 
assess the degree to which the CR wording is in alignment with the 
original intent -- and change the draft Understandings accordingly. With 
the SCs in a more stable form, I think there is also a chance to see what 
possible intersections between different SCs there can be as we draft 
sufficient and advisory techniques.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
To:     Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc:     "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, John Foliot 
<john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2018-02-23 05:11 PM
Subject:        Re: SC 1.3.4 - to keep or not?



Alastair,

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 = 
CPWA
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | 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 <acampbell@nomensa.com
> 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 spec.)
 
 
> 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 
content.
 
Cheers,
 
-Alastair