Re: SC 1.3.4 - Understanding doc update

Andrew,

AWK: I don’t agree on calling it “autocomplete” as that is tied to the
attribute name for HTML and we hope to not only allow other attributes at
some point in HTML but also other technologies. I also am not thrilled with
the idea of relegating this SC to “input assistance”, even though this is
part of the benefit it isn’t everything, and it is paired with 1.3.5 which
is not about input assistance at all.

Katie: The SC, in the stem sentence and both bullets talk about 'input
field', or 'form input data'.....therefore I am unsure how you envision the
requirements of this SC to ever cover anything other than form inputs, no
matter what technology is used. As is, this SC is no longer about Purpose
of Controls, but about helping users with memory or cognitive issues input
repetitive content into form fields - and that is cognitive support I could
get behind. (But we could also just suggest they use Autocomplete for this
purpose without an SC)

(As an aside someone might be able to use a feature like this to try to
implement some micro-amount of personalization by adding icons when such
functionality exists - but that would be above and beyond the help of
easing the task of filling in the form.). So, IMO, this SC should be
decoupled from personalization and the Level AAA SC about Purpose and moved
to reside under Guideline 3.3 Input Assistance.


Alastair:  *Katie* – I’m fairly sure the AI/heuristics aspects is a red
herring for this purpose.

Katie: For this purpose of identifying a purpose of a control, or the
meaning of any element on the page via a personalized rendering - you are
correct - right now - it is a red herring. I wasn't suggesting that we try
that....:-)

But using AI to allow Accessibility (and other) metadata to be
injected-into or utilized-by a web page is the probably
a better route to address this problem overall, for the web. Because
requiring authors to add markup to everything, which the personalization
identified portion of this SC is trying to do (via tokens that match the
autocomplete values), sets a precedent for sending personalization down
that road. That, in my opinion, is not the best way to tackle this very
complicated problem that the web has been trying to solve for some time.

We will need to be explaining to people why we have this SC and who it is
for.


** 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 Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> (Do I need to say “Chair hat off” for these things now? If so, it’s off.)
>
> AWK: Ditto.
>
>
>
> *Does 1.3.4 support personalisation?*
>
> Katie picked up on Lisa’s response of “No” last week, and without wanting
> to put words in Lisa’s mouth, I think the nuanced answer is ‘not in a way
> that looks anything like what was hoped for’.
>
>
>
> AWK: That is good to hear and meshes more with my understanding of what
> this SC can promote.
>
>
>
> Partly that is because these tokens would represent about 5-10%
> (rough-guess) of what would be provided by the personalisation spec, so in
> that way this SC does not represent personalisation.
>
>
>
> AWK: Right, but it is a step in a positive direction.
>
>
>
> Technically yes, the attributes added *could* be used to add icons,
> however, today (for implementations) we don’t have two user-agents (or two
> sites) that add icons based on autocomplete  tokens.
>
>
>
> AWK: The ally-resources.com site shows one example of this, but doesn’t
> cover all HTML autocomplete attribute values though.
>
>
>
> My proposed update (initial draft) is here:
>
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/autocomplete.html
>
> (And in github: https://github.com/alastc/wcag21/blob/identify-common-
> purpose/understanding/21/identify-common-purpose.html )
>
>
>
> AWK: Thanks for the work on this Alastair.
>
>
>
> I agree with Katie that it should be moved to 3.3, and call it something
> else. Autocomplete, input assistance, I don’t have strong feelings about
> that.
>
> AWK: I don’t agree on calling it “autocomplete” as that is tied to the
> attribute name for HTML and we hope to not only allow other attributes at
> some point in HTML but also other technologies. I also am not thrilled with
> the idea of relegating this SC to “input assistance”, even though this is
> part of the benefit it isn’t everything, and it is paired with 1.3.5 which
> is not about input assistance at all.
>
>
>