- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 13:53:23 -0600
- To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Katie and all, I added "covered" to the obscured bullet point. Thank you. I started a working definition for "fully visible". So far it is: "content within the viewport that is not clipped or truncated." Does that work? I wonder to simplify the SC, if we if we could add the "not covered or obscured" bit to the "fully visible" definition? If so, then we drop the second bullet all together. Thoughts? Thanks again. Kindest Regards, Laura On 11/17/16, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote: > Laura, > > Sounds like you had a good call.... > > I think we do need to define 'Fully Visible'. > > Also how about adding covered to the obscured line? > > Informational content which appears on hover that is necessary for > understanding must be: > * fully visible, > * not covered or obscured, > * available on focus as well as hover, and > * available via any input method. > > > > > > * katie * > > Katie Haritos-Shea > Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA) > > Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | > Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 19:53:56 UTC