Re: What is a failure of 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose?

Yes the reason this technique got consensus is that it provided "some
value" today, which is laid out in the understanding as making it easier to
fill out fields. The technique relies on browsers that support
autocomplete, so a company could not say "we rely on IE version x for our
conformance statement" if they have form fields collecting info about an
end user.

I advocated consensus for this SC and the autocomplete technique not upon
its aspirational hope, but on its current benefits. I hope there is success
with this area and support its future.

I also would *not* advocate consensus for a new sufficient technique that
doesn't have any current benefit and is purely aspirational until
technology comes along to do something with it for the end user, because
that would be in violation of WCAG 2/2.1 accessibility supported normative
requirement.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:19 AM John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> *Success Criterion 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose (Level AA)
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#identify-input-purpose>: *The purpose of
> each input field collecting information about the user can be
> programmatically determined when:
>
>
>    - The input field serves a purpose identified in the Input Purposes
>          for User Interface Components section; and
>          - The content is implemented using technologies with support for
>          identifying the expected meaning for form input data.
>
> David writes:
>
> > ...with support for identifying the expected meaning for form input
> data. [JF notes that the SC doesn't say "...and then do something with that
> information..."]
>
>
> Patrick writes:
>
> > ...What can be done *without AT* in terms of identifying the purpose of
> the input?
>
>
> From the Understanding document
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-input-purpose.html>:
>
> *The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure that the purpose of a
> form input collecting information about the user can be programmatically
> determined, so that user agents can extract and present this purpose to
> users using different modalities. The ability to programmatically declare
> the specific kind of data expected in a particular field makes filling out
> forms easier, especially for people with cognitive disabilities.*
>
>
> (Which also brings us back to the scoping it to the actual user
> discussion)
>
>    - [Element + machine-readable & parsable metadata] = machine can do
>    something with the metadata based upon the value of the metadata
>    - [<input> + "purpose"] = machine "knows" (or can know) what the
>    purpose of the input is, and can potentially do something with that
>    "knowledge"
>    - [<input> + @autocomplete with fixed token value] = browsers can
>    auto-fill input values based upon which token is specified
>            (2 X independent implementations = exit criteria)
>
> As previously noted however, machines (browsers) *DO NOT* have to
> autofill the inputs for this SC to be conformant, as
>
> a) not all browsers support the 'feature' (looking at you Microsoft), and
> b) not all browsers are expected to be storing the corresponding values
> (public terminals, etc.) associated to the end user, and finally
> c) that specific functionality is not part of the SC requirements.
>
> None-the-less, *IF* the author has set the conditions, *THEN* when the
> user-configuration is set accordingly, something happens.
>
> YES, this SC has a lot of aspiration behind it, and minimal support today
> (*one* technique does "something" that benefits the end user), because it
> has been made 'machine-readable' and 'machine understandable'. But we have
> the evidence of the SC meeting it's stated goal, and we've cracked the
> chicken and egg problem by starting to have developers add metadata to
> content at the element level.
>
> Do we want it to do more? Absolutely, but we have to crawl before we can
> sprint, and we had to start somewhere. But just like WCAG CANNOT *mandate*
> the use of, say, @alt to successfully meet SC 1.1.1, here as well we cannot
> mandate the use of @autocomplete to meet this SC; and if an organization
> (and we have a few working in this space today) want to build out the
> larger tool-sets to support another valid and conformant W3C technology
> (like Microdata) to identifying the expected meaning, we cannot "forbid"
> it nor "fail" it, because *we don't fail based upon techniques, but on
> outcomes*.
>
> In the simplest of terms, the functional outcome expected here is that
> inputs are 'tagged' with appropriate metadata so that "the purpose" of the
> input can be unambiguously understood by a machine.
>
> Do we need more tooling? Absolutely! But the fact that we have enough
> robust support from tools "doing something" with the appropriately tagged
> inputs today (and not just browsers BTW, we tested password managers as
> well) because they can "...identify the expected meaning..." and then
> autofill the inputs, was the justification for this SC passing the exit
> criteria. This was discussed at length during the F2F last CSUN, when we
> ran these test sprints.
>
> JF
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 8:03 PM David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> > What AT is required to support the technique for this SC? Serious
>> question.
>>
>> What can be done without AT in terms of identifying the purpose of the
>> input and doing interesting things with that purpose envisioned by COGA
>> such as inserting icons, swapping out labels, etc. as per the Understanding
>> doc. etc....  ?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>>
>> Tel:  613-806-9005
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:57 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/01/2019 21:51, John Foliot wrote:
>>> > Hi David,
>>> >
>>> > What AT is required to support the technique for this SC? Serious
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Some AT (or UA, or UA extension) that does something meaningful with
>>> whatever means of adding "purpose" the author chose?
>>>
>>> Probably depends on the exact reading of what "support" really
>>> means/refers to in
>>>
>>> "The content is implemented using technologies with support for
>>> identifying the expected meaning for form input data."
>>>
>>> Support in a theoretical "well, it's exposed programmatically by the UA"
>>> way, or support in a "and there's some real-world, actually used UA etc
>>> that does something with it"?
>>>
>>> P
>>> --
>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>>
>>> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> *​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC
> Representative
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> deque.com
>
>