E-mail List Archives
Re: Dealing with ambiguous form fields when applying the new SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose"
From: John Foliot
Date: Nov 2, 2018 1:55PM
- Next message: Judith Blankman: "Adobe Captivate accessibility"
- Previous message: Tomm Sibert: "Accessible math equations in PDF from Word"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Dealing with ambiguous form fields when applying the new SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose""
- Previous message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Dealing with ambiguous form fields when applying the new SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose""
- View all messages in this Thread
> What if the author decides that that's not the correct /
all-encompassing semantic meaning of that field, and decides not to add any
autocomplete? Do we fail?
Hey Patrick,
do as you would do <grin>. Obviously at this early stage, we have some
basic education required, so think of this as a teachable moment - fail or
not is your call, not mine.
Personally, I would fail it, and I would likely instruct our evaluators at
Deque to fail it as well. I think the input semantic is pretty
straightforward - it's looking for a username (and simply suggests/offers
you the opportunity to use an email address for that purpose - it doesn't
have to be *YOUR* email address, I think any formatted email address would
suffice) as one possible string of text that would = "username".
HTH
JF
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Patrick H. Lauke < <EMAIL REMOVED> >
wrote:
> On 02/11/2018 18:30, John Foliot wrote:
>
> Having a dual-value input has some issues, however from the perspective of
>> SC 1.3.5, I think we discussed that the page author could chose either of
>> the values for the metadata attachment (i.e. you could use
>> autocomplete="email" or autocomplete="username" in this use-case), and I
>> would argue that the slightly better choice would be "username", simply
>> because the spec also notes the following for the token term:
>>
>
> What if the author decides that that's not the correct / all-encompassing
> semantic meaning of that field, and decides not to add any autocomplete? Do
> we fail? Seems a tad harsh, based on "you didn't boil down this
> multi-purpose field to only one of the autocomplete values".
>
> 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
>
> > > > >
--
*âJohn Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
- Next message: Judith Blankman: "Adobe Captivate accessibility"
- Previous message: Tomm Sibert: "Accessible math equations in PDF from Word"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Dealing with ambiguous form fields when applying the new SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose""
- Previous message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Dealing with ambiguous form fields when applying the new SC 1.3.5 Identify Input Purpose""
- View all messages in this Thread