- From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 18:13:22 -0400
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7091f44a-6163-c57f-11e0-6d4d77f9adaf@w3.org>
I put in CSS to style the SC definition lists as bullets. It looks good to me in 2 Windows browsers, and decent in a 3rd. But I'm not sure how brittle the approach is. If people want to test and let me know if it doesn't work in your browser. If I get reports that it's awful, I'll revert the edit before the publication and sort it for the later publication. Otherwise I'll publish with this style change in. Michael On 08/09/2017 3:59 PM, David MacDonald wrote: > Hi Michael > > I've put up an example of our DL code with some CSS to make the <dt> > and <dl> inline and placed a background image for a bullet on the <dt>. > > Feel free to use this code if you find it useful and save an hour or > so of fiddling with CSS. > > http://davidmacd.com/test/definition-list-with-bullets.html > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 > > LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > / Adapting the web to *all* users/ > > / Including those with disabilities/ > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy > policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org > <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: > > On 08/09/2017 11:20 AM, David MacDonald wrote: >> I could live with that rational... do you think we should remove >> numbers where they are in WCAG 2? >> 1.4.8 >> 3.3.4 >> 3.3.6 > It's a separate question as to whether we should change the WCAG > 2.0 SC that are included in WCAG 2.1. For now I didn't touch > those, under the rationale that we're keeping them exactly as they > appear in WCAG 2.0 for now, to minimize confusion. However, we > could decide that we want to apply at least editorial changes to > make all of WCAG 2.1 self-consistent; we will also soon explore > whether we want to merge some WCAG 2.1 SC with existing 2.0 SC, in > which case we would be changing them anyways. In either of those > cases, yes I would like to apply the editorial changes to the 2.0 > SC, but we won't have the decisions to support doing that before > the upcoming WD publication. >> >> However, I would not like to loose the actual bullets such as has >> been done in the current 2.1 draft. I don't think we want >> definition lists instead of the bullets... missing the visual >> bullet I think hinders comprehension. > I think the definition list is important for semantics, it > provides a semantic for the header that simply putting boldface > text doesn't. However, I've said many times that I plan to improve > the styling, and it initially makes sense to make it come out like > bullets, looking the way it does in WCAG 2.0. I believe this to be > possible with CSS but also believe it to be more tricky than one > would hope. > > If direct styling fails, it's also an option to have the script > output the document as bullets with semanticless boldface headers > (which is also what WCAG 2.0 does). But even in that case, for > editorial ease I consider it important to keep them as definition > lists in the source. > > A very short background to why I'm pushing on this - for WCAG 2.0 > we had a rich XML format with all sorts of semantics that helped > us maintain and transform the document to different outputs. But > that proved too hard for people who weren't extensively trained in > the format to edit, so for 2.1 we decided to use HTML as our > source, which has far fewer of the semantics we need but is easier > for WG participants to author. I proposed the closest available > semantic to our use cases, which in the case of list with headers > is a definition list. We can use script and style to adjust the > output - I'm not excellent at either so haven't done as much of > those as I expect us eventually to want - but I consider having > maximally semantic markup important for our later needs. > > Michael > >> >> >> Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:%28613%29%20235-4902> >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> >> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >> >> / Adapting the web to *all* users/ >> >> /Including those with disabilities/ >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy >> policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >> >> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org >> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: >> >> Using list numbering to refer to things is very brittle. >> Things can change all the time in ways that affect numbering, >> and if we start using particular numbers to refer to >> particular things and don't want to change numbers as a >> result, it puts a major constraint on our work for a fairly >> artificial reason. >> >> I would also argue that ordered lists should only be used >> when there is an inherent sequential order required for >> meaning in the list. I did not find any SC where I believed >> that to be the case. I think with any of these SC, if we >> changed the order of list items the SC would mean the same thing. >> >> If you want to be able to easily refer to list items in a SC, >> you should use the lists with headers approach, used by many >> SC, and implemented as definition lists in our source code. I >> personally would like to see all SC use that pattern, but did >> not propose it as a rule, and did not consider it merely >> editorial to introduce that pattern to SC that weren't using >> it. If somebody wants to make proposals we could decide to >> implement that on SC during the normalization period of the >> next couple months, or the WG could declare that editorial >> and delegate me to do it. >> >> Michael >> >> >> On 08/09/2017 2:51 AM, David MacDonald wrote: >>> In general I think they look great and it helps a lot... >>> >>> I would like to discuss with the group the option of making >>> all bulleted lists into orderded lists that are numbered... >>> it would then be easier to refer to individual bullets in >>> reports of conformance. >>> >>> For instance in User Interface components if referring to >>> the part on Inactive components an evaluator could list. >>> >>> 1.4.12 #2 >>> OR >>> 1.1.12.2 >>> >>> Currently many SCs don't have bullets OR numbers which is a >>> departure from WCAG 2 >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#graphics-contrast >>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#graphics-contrast> >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum >>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum> >>> >>> Even some of the WCAG 2 SCs that have bullets in the >>> original don't have them in the last draft. >>> See the original 1.4.3 >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast >>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast> >>> VS >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum >>> <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum> >>> >>> And I think the latest draft is confusing without these >>> bullets because it looks more like glossary terms than part >>> of the SC text. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> David MacDonald >>> >>> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* >>> >>> Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:%28613%29%20235-4902> >>> >>> LinkedIn >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >>> >>> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> >>> >>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >>> >>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >>> >>> /Adapting the web to *all* users/ >>> >>> /Including those with disabilities/ >>> >>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our >>> privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Cooper >>> <cooper@w3.org <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Following up on the QA checklist I sent around last >>> week, I have done an editorial pass of the SC in WCAG >>> 2.1. The changes I made are shown in: >>> >>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838b9fa5327b28b37dab >>> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838b9fa5327b28b37dab> >>> >>> Please let me know if you disagree that any of these >>> changes are editorial. Most are simple things like >>> punctuation, but in a couple places I moved clauses >>> around to improve coherence and readability. >>> >>> I added a couple things to the QA checklist as I went, >>> and implemented those in these edits: >>> >>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.1_QA_Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109 >>> <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.1_QA_Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109> >>> >>> The change that I think might give people the most pause >>> is Content on Hover or Focus >>> (https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus >>> <https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus>), >>> where I changed >>> >>> "When content becomes visible when triggered by a >>> user interface componentreceiving keyboard focus or >>> pointer hover, the following are true, except where >>> the visual presentation of the content is controlled >>> by the user agent and is not modified by the author:" >>> >>> to >>> >>> "When a user interface componentwhich receives >>> keyboard focus or pointer hovercauses content to >>> become visible, the following are true:" >>> >>> and moved the exception to after the bullet list. I made >>> this change because I was finding the dependent clauses >>> to be very hard to follow. I think I didn't change >>> meaning, but want to point this out for extra review in >>> case you disagree this change was editorial. >>> >>> I plan to make a pass through terms as well but didn't >>> get to that today. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 11 September 2017 22:13:27 UTC