Comment Summary 1-3-4

This is where the proposed responses to comments on Purpose of Controls are listed:

New from lisa:

Thank you for your feedback.

The conventional name are required only for the items listed in the definitions (or appendix in the next WD). We will try and clarify that in the understanding section and the techniques. For now please see an example page for worked examples.

There is an ARIA module working draft to support this and there are other more mature methods you can use, such as HTML5 autocomplete and Microdata. However, as these techniques are not supported in all formats such as PDF, we have limited the scope to mark up languages like HTML.

If you want you can look at our draft techniques at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YiknHDDDdKBdwVTEpxwUpyCaQL_tnpp9CfDlFjCq16E/edit#

By the time we leave CR we are committed to all SC have working websites and implementations in a few different platforms (or they will be removed from the final draft) and full techniques for compliance. Please see https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_CR_Exit_Criteria for the details.

Note that this success criteria only requires programmatic identification, so that AT can identify the element and provide addition support (such as adding symbols or autocomplete). We are not requiring any specific text to be seen by the user or be used as the item label. So they do not need to be understandable by users.

Please also note that the list of items in the appendix are not the attribute values themselves, just a list of items that need to be identified via any specification that you choose to use. We did however edit the definitions in our next working draft to make them more consistent. At this point it is too late to add more terms but we will consider them for subsequent versions. You are also invited to submit your suggestions to the personlization task force by opening an issue for them.

We hope that answers your concerns.

320: Thank you for your comment. Adding additional requirements for text within content to use a constrained vocabulary was covered in a separate SC that was not ultimately able to be incorporated into the drafts at this stage. We have an issue that speaks to this that is deferred for future consideration.

340: Thank you for your comment. We believe that the current version of the SC addresses the testability concern.

381: Thank you for your comment. The current list is intended to indicate the purpose but not the specific terms used, so authors might use "sign in" or "log in" and from the perspective of the WCAG 2.1 SC both convey the same purpose. The current draft should help make this clear.

382: Thank you for your comment. The intention in this SC is to provide a small core set of purposes. The control information is now focused on user information, but we will keep your suggestions around search purposes in mind for the future. (and mark "defer")

391: Thank you for your comment. The terms in the list are not meant to be string literals. We have made this more clear in the current draft.

402: Thank you for your comment. We believe that the current draft provides the specificity that is needed for testability.

416: Thank you for your comment. In the current draft we are providing a clear list of purposes, but the author can select metadata that is appropriate to the region to express the common purpose. We have broadened the approach to concepts like names - authors can select the right categories of metadata as used in that region. The linktypes selected represent a small, and hopefully stable collection of link purposes - there are certainly many others that could be used by authors. Please do review the updated draft - hopefully the changes address your concerns.

426: Thank you for your comment. We believe that we have addressed your concerns, perhaps not ideally, but sufficiently.

466: Thank you for your comment. We have made substantial changes to this SC and believe that you will find it far more implementable. Please review the current draft when it comes out this week.

486: Thank you for your comment. We have made substantial changes to this SC and believe that you will find it far more understandable. Please review the current draft when it comes out this week.

538: Thank you for your comment. We have made substantial changes to this SC and believe that you will find it far more understandable. Please review the current draft when it comes out this week.

546: Thank you for your comment. We have an updated draft that does not include the "conventional name" language. We think that the latest version will be more easily understood.

(comments after 546 are beyond the comment period)