Re: Placement of 1.3.4

Katie, Jason, Alastair and all y’all,

I wish you could have heard my tone of voice and known beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I was just respectfully referencing well written understanding documents that I had just reread myself.  With all that is written in WCAG normative and informative...I never trust my memory.  

Even if I’ve read something 100 times. Even if I wrote it.  I personally find it super helpful to reread anything I’m basing a decision on and to reference it by quote (or if it is long) by url. 

So, Jason, Katie, if you were offended by my suggestion, I’m deeply sorry. 

I’m likely to be offline in the next 24-48 hours. If I’m slow to respond, please understand.

Peace,
Glenda 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 15, 2018, at 2:16 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Stating your opinion and why you think so is very important to the success of this WG.
> 
> However, asking people who has been on the WG for 10 or 15 years, who helped write the Principles, Guidelines and SC of WCAG 2.0 - to 'take the time to read a guideline' is a bit unpleasant - don't you think?. At one time Jason was, I think, a Chair of this WG.
> 
> * 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 Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 1:17 PM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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  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.
>> 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
>> "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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>