RE: Placement of 1.3.4

Even if a different attribute is used to implement 1.3.4 than the much discussed autocomplete, it remains very much concerned with input assistance (e.g., making the meaning and purpose of form fields more perspicuous to the user), and there’s a good case that it therefore belongs under Principle 3. I think there’s a weaker case for its current location.

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 4:59 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Placement of 1.3.4

Hi Katie,

I was really hoping you’d be there so we could discuss it and get to a conclusion, but health comes first. I’ll try and outline the primary factors we discussed:

Primarily – this is an approved SC, we’re in CR, and the discussion is about placement, which is an editorial aspect. Therefore we shouldn’t take our focus off the bigger picture of implementations, evaluations & understanding docs.

Also, I was on the COGA call today and put this question to Lisa et al. I think my exact question was: Would you rather this SC was in the current place or under input assistance? Their response was to leave it where it is.
As you know I was sceptical, but they do consider It as the first step towards personalisation and would like it’s position (and understanding document) to reflect that.

John made the point that the use of autocomplete (and focus on that benefit) has skewed the discussion, the HTML5 autocomplete is the technique, the aim is still personalisation.
It also looks like we’ll have one or two user-agents to show the personalisation aspects before the end of the month.

From the github issue [1] I was trying to read into your comments which are concerns about the SC overall, and which are about placement.

Given the above comments, has that addressed your concern about the placement?
And if not, are you likely to be able to make Tuesday?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/768<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F768&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Ca73c56f525e9499a785508d585407abe%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636561434344473430&sdata=rIG%2F3S4UauiP41y5GooE7%2FO%2BPl34OuL576qgaHIltOw%3D&reserved=0>

From: Katie Haritos-Shea

I could not make this call as I was at the doctors. Had I been there, I would have strongly opposed tbe response on 1.3.4 and the idea to keep it where it is and not move it to 3.3


________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________