Re: Accessible authentication Updates

+1

On Mon, 22 Aug 2022 at 10:11, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I don’t think we’ve had any concerns about these updates, but I’ll state
> them concisely here.
>
>
>
> Firstly, some fairly editorial updates:
>
>
>
> *2. Clarify Accessible Authentication by including "remembering user names
> and passwords" in the SC text #2577 *
>
>
>
> Most people agree with the addition, with a couple of suggestions to put
> it in parenthesise and include at the AAA level. PR 2609
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2609/files> has been updated to reflect
> that.
>
>
>
> There was a concern about the term “cognitive function test”, but for want
> of a better alternative, they could live with it.
>
>
>
> Does anyone object to PR 2609
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2609/files> which adds: (such as
> remembering a password or solving a puzzle) to both versions?
>
>
>
>
>
> *3. Editorial update to accessible-auth exception #2608 *
>
>
>
> Tobias made a suggestion which several people agreed with (and doesn’t
> change the meaning), so I’ve updated PR 2608
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2608/files> to reflect that.
>
>
>
> Any objections to that update?
>
>
>
>
>
> *New issue 2*
>
>
>
> I don’t think there’s a separate issue for it, but in a couple of places
> people have raised that: identifying content the user has provided to the
> website could include passwords.
>
>
>
> To resolve this, I’m proposing we use “non-text content” in the
> exception, and remove ‘text’ from the note. This is implemented in PR 2624
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2624/files>.
>
>
>
> Any objections?
>
>
>
>
>
> Then a more substantial re-structure:
>
>
>
> *New issue 1*
>
>
>
> In the thread of Issue 2592 <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2592> EricE
> proposed to re-structure the SC text so it uses bullet-points for the
> exceptions AND the alternative  & mechanism aspects.
>
>
>
> To keep it aligned with the current meaning I suggested it use a structure
> more like the alt-text SC:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2592#issuecomment-1217758169
>
>
>
> The question at this point is: Do people think that improves the SC and
> no-one would object?
>
>
>
> If anyone objects, we’ll shut-down that approach now rather than take time
> on it but I couldn’t see a problem with it.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>
>
>