Re: SC lists now formatted as bullets Re: Editorial changes to SC

Hi Michael

It works fine in Firefox chrome and edge latest builds in Windows
it works fine in chrome Firefox and Safari latest builds on Mac OS
it works fine on an iPhone chrome
in Safari on an iPhone it falls back to the default layout for definition
lists which is fine for one minority browser and mobile. The CSS doesn't
break the design, it is just ignored in Safari on an iPhone.

So I would say let's go with it.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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 Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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> 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 <%28613%29%20235-4902>
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> 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> 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/#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
>>> VS
>>> 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 <%28613%29%20235-4902>
>>>
>>> LinkedIn
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>>
>>> 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> 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/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838
>>>> b9fa5327b28b37dab
>>>>
>>>> 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_C
>>>> hecklist&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), where I changed
>>>>
>>>> "When content becomes visible when triggered by a user interface
>>>> component receiving 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 component which receives keyboard focus or
>>>> pointer hover causes 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>