Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible

> Do you seriously think they do it because of an advisory technique in
> WCAG? And not because, you know, they decided to do that already for
> aesthetic reasons? Ok...

Yes, Patrick. I don't know about your development team, but we always check
the advisories. That's why they are there.

Let's say there are two camps on a development team - one who thinks
websites look "pretty" without focus on click, and another camp who is
concerned about accessibility. Any good team lead will use the advisory to
make the right decision in these circumstances. Guidelines are as important
as requirements to most good developers. By not having an advisory it is in
fact sign posting that there SHOULDN'T be any focus on mouse click
especially when mouse hover IS an advisory.

But again, we have got lost in this discussion, and you still fail to
address the basic point but rather tangle us in strawman arguments. The
basic point is that focus on click, as far as my research has show, is the
desired UX for visually impaired users.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 7:22 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>
> On 10/07/2023 19:20, Michael Livesey wrote:
>
> >  >>Advisory techniques have no "power" though. They go beyond what is
> > required by WCAG, so - in my experience anyway - they're summarily
> > ignored by authors trying to meet WCAG
> >
> > If this were true no one would add styles for mouse hover, but in actual
> > fact most developers add styles for mouse hover.
>
> Do you seriously think they do it because of an advisory technique in
> WCAG? And not because, you know, they decided to do that already for
> aesthetic reasons? Ok...
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>