W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2007

Re: How do our SC do when rating these two examples?

From: Chris Blouch <cblouch@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:31:25 -0400
Message-ID: <46CC48BD.6010007@aol.com>
To: Bailey Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

This is annoying in general in that the very instant I mouse off the 
image the popup leaves. What would be more ideal is a 500ms timer on the 
popup hide function. This would allow you to refocus on the popup and 
that focus would cancel the pending hide. This gives a much more 
forgiving navigation in general and would solve the screen magnification 
issue. What's funny is that mousing over the  'wedge' which forms the 
thought balloon still retains the popup's state, but beyond the wedge 
into the main body of the balloon pops it.

CB

Bailey Bruce wrote:
> I would surely appreciate some feedback if our current success criteria
> discriminate between the following two examples, both of which use
> largish mouse-over previews.
> http://www.netflix.com/BrowseSelection?lnkctr=nmhbs
> http://www.si.edu/imax/shows.htm
>
> These were brought to my attention by a colleague who depends upon
> screen magnification software.  Her difficulties are similar to those I
> have witnessed in my experience working with many low vision clients.  I
> would prefer to focus on the SC aimed at addressing low vision, ignoring
> other accessibility issues for the sake of argument with these examples.
>
> The problem is that the screen magnification tracks the mouse, so the
> visual pop-up is trigger as designed, but then as the screen
> magnification user moves the mouse to *read* the pop-up content (since
> the new content does not all fit in the magnified view port) the mouse
> cursor invariably strays from the triggering target the pop-up content
> disappears.  The SI example is actually even more frustrating as the
> pop-up content is attached to the mouse cursor so it *moves away* as one
> tries to move to the middle of it!
>
> What makes the NetFlix approach acceptable is that each target is also a
> link which brings up redundant content.  With the SI example, the
> targets are also link, but one gets tangential information (show times)
> and not the preview details (as is the case with NetFlix).
>
> This "pop-up preview" seems to be something of a growing trend, so I
> think the topic is timely.  Here is a site that promotes the feature
> heavily:
> http://www.snap.com/
>   
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2007 14:31:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:50 GMT