Re: Placement of 1.3.4

Jason,

I respectfully disagree. I believe the strongest logical case is for
recognizing that "Identify Common Purpose" is about Perceivable: 1.3
Adaptable.  Let me explain what I think is causing the misunderstanding.

   1. Perceivable/Adaptable
      - 1.3.4 Identify Common Purpose originally started out to identify
      the common purpose of more than just input fields.  But at this
      point...y'all are only willing to try this for "input fields".  The fact
      that we are leveraging autofill as the metadata (that has a side
effect of
      entering data) is a bonus situation.  When the next piece comes in
      (Identify Common Controls) this won't just be about input assistance at
      all..it is about helping people find common things (recognize
common things
      on web pages).
      - Remember where we are headed.  Review the list of items that I
      predict will come in next (hopefully in WCAG 2.1).
      https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20171207/#commonpurposes
      <https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-WCAG21-20171207/#commonpurposes>
      including "Table of Contents", "Next",  "Previous", "Sign out", "Contact
      Us".
      - How much time do we all spend looking for things like how to log
      off and where is that dang contact us link...and what did they name it on
      this site.
      - I repeat...the "autofill" side effect is a bonus.  The real intent
      of this SC is to provide reliable meta-data for Coga AT to be
able to help
      a person FIND/RECOGNIZE these things.
      2. WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1.3 Adaptable - *Guideline 1.3: *Create content
   that can be presented in different ways (for example simpler layout)
   without losing information or structure.
      - Please take the time to read the Intent of Guideline 1.3
      <https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation.html>"The
      purpose of this guideline is to ensure that all information is
available in
      a form that can be perceived by all users, for example, spoken aloud, or
      presented in a simpler visual layout."


peace out,
goodwitch


glenda sims  |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773
*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

[image: IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals:
Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]
<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>




On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 8:15 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> 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.
> ------------------------------
>