RE: CFC - Decision to keep 1.3.4 where it is


Chair hat off:
+1 to Glenda’s comments. People seem to be fixating on the term ‘inputs’ in the SC text.
There is no perfect placement, but I’m guided by the intent (and path for future updates) that is about adapting elements of the page.
When I read the SCs in 3.3, none of them are about code-level elements or metadata, they are about text or language used on the page.

From: Glenda Sims

+1 keep it where it is.

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 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).  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.

peace out,

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

[Image removed by sender. IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]<>

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>> wrote:
Call For Consensus — ends Monday March 19th at 11:00am Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed a change which would move SC 1.3.4 Identify Common Controls to Guideline 3.3. This CFC is to evaluate the apparent consensus to not move the SC. On the WG call there was a lower level of support to move the SC than to not move it.

Call minutes:

If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2018 17:29:58 UTC