"Common Purpose" names should be maintained by WCAG

[chaals]

The new success criterion 1.3.4 makes a lot of sense.

(Although "Common Purpose" in english generally means a shared goal, rather than a widely-recognised one. It might be useful to change the name of the Success Criterion to reflect that).

Rather than baking in the list of terms by reference to HTML 5.2, it would make more sense if they were managed as an appendix to WCAG itself, or a parallel Rec-rack document.

That list from autocomplete makes a useful starting point, but it seems likely that there will be a number of changes specific to the accessibility use which might not be so easily adopted for "autofill" - and almost certainly only by extensions rather than the bigger American browsers taking them on natively, so needing to go through an HTML update cycle seems like an unnecessary barrier, introducing an external timeline dependency in the pathway to updates.

Having the information as a part of WCAG allows for a simpler update path for what is basically a vocabulary. An alternative is to make a separate Recommendation - again to allow for simpler updates to suit the needs of WCAG.

[awkawk]

Thank you for commenting. For more information about how the AG WG will process this issue, see the following:

• Issue Processing - How the WG will discuss the issue
• Issue Resolution - Identifying and responding to the official WG response
• Issue Notification - How to limit notifications from GitHub

[johnfoliot]

[Official WG Response]
The Working Group reviewed this Issue during our recent face-to-face meetings, and has concluded with the following Resolution:

RESOLUTION: working group decides to move the list into an Appendix of WCAG 2.1 unless that change contravenes CR status.

[chaals]

This should have no implication for CR, since it makes no difference at all to implementation requirements - the set of terms that implementations must recognise is exactly the same, and they have not been given a definitive machine-readable source.

[awkawk]

The WG decided on the above response, so we changed the text in the comment containing the proposed response to read "[Official WG Response]". Please confirm is you are satisfied with the response within 3 days. If we haven't heard a response by then we will regard the resolution as satisfactory.

[chaals]

Confirming I am satisfied. Thanks