0
Not a fan of "*available for the user to select*". It's a bit vague, Would
prefer "*a mechanism is available to populate*". Makes it clear that it
means "whatever you can think of to do it is fine".
I don't think the current language rules out autocomplete. I find it hard
to argue that autocompleting an e-mail address doesn't qualify as
"available for the user to select". I'll open a separate issue for this.
Don't think it needs to block the SC.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 1:42 AM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:03 PM Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Laura
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 7:05 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Call For Consensus — ends Friday 23rd at noon Boston time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Working Group has discussed the updates to *Redundant Entry*:
>>>
>>> https://w3c.github.io/wcag/understanding/redundant-entry.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Call minutes:
>>> https://www.w3.org/2021/04/13-ag-minutes.html#item02
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/2021/04/20-ag-minutes.html#item06
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Survey:
>>> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-redundant-entry-updates/results
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Alastair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
--
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules
