Re: Comments (was CFC - WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata)

-1 to Glenda's point.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2024 at 1:11 PM Giacomo Petri <giacomo.petri@usablenet.com>
wrote:

> +1 to both the updates and Alastair's point.
>
> Giacomo
>
> On 7 Nov 2024, at 16:49, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> (Chair hat off) I agree, I made a very similar point earlier
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3539#issuecomment-2056526702> in the
> discussion.
>
> The ‘about the user’ aspect is important so that developers don’t get
> dinged for not putting autocomplete on fields such as “name” when they are
> about other people than the user. E.g. other passengers travelling with you.
>
> As it stands, I wouldn’t fail an input for not including
> transaction-amount unless it was clearly information about the user, not
> the transaction. E.g. “The maximum I would ever pay for a pint of milk is
> [______]”
>
> Arguably transaction amount isn’t appropriate for that usage anyway, it’s
> the only example I could think of. In general it’s just confusing to
> include something in the list that shouldn’t be used.
>
> It’s confusion of inclusion vs the effects of updating normatively
> referenced text.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> *From: *Jon Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 7 November 2024 at 15:25
> *To: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Comments (was CFC - WCAG 2.1/2.2 errata)
> I am wondering if transaction amount being listed actually means it has to
> be applied in evaluating the criterion though given the wording of the
> criterion.  For example, the SC is predicated on “about the user”.  Just
> like any other of the listed input types – the SC only applies when they
> are about the user – so last name or first name would not be required if
> it’s not about the user – and in this case transaction amount doesn’t need
> to conform if it’s not about the user even if it’s listed in the appendix.
> I don’t think just because it’s listed means all of the fields have to be
> evaluated if they are NOT about the user.  So, this seems like a compromise
> to keep it in but allow people to not fail it.
>
> The purpose of each input field collecting information about the user can
> be programmatically determined
> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-input-purpose.html#dfn-programmatically-determined>
>  when:
>
>    - The input field serves a purpose identified in the Input Purposes
>    for user interface components section
>    <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/identify-input-purpose.html#input-purposes>;
>    and
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>

-- 
Satya Jaya Aparna Pasi
CPWA | VP, Professional Services
Deque Systems
aparna.pasi@deque.com
"Accessibility is a feature, not an option"

Have feedback for our Professional Services team? Please fill in the survey
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YFWJ2MV>.

Build more accessible experiences Start your axe DevTools Pro trial today.
<https://axe.deque.com/plans?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=email>