Re: Is content on hover only a WCAG failure?

+1

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 Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:

> Ø  My initial reaction to  ​Steve's  scenario is "No - all of the buttons
> would need to be keyboard
>
>
>
> If all five of the buttons perform the same operation and 4 are not
> operational with the keyboard the function is still keyboard operable.
>   WCAG does not make any distinction on where the on page alternative is
> located or how many tab stops it must be.    WCAG indicates that
> alternative pages don’t even need to have a one-to-one equivalence – that
> is a non-conforming page can have links to two pages where the alternatives
> are found.
>
>
>
> Whether this is equivalent access is a separate discussion than does it
> meet the conformance requirements.  WCAG allows pages to contain
> non-conformant content as long as the content isn’t relied on for the
> conformance claim – because there is an alternative or because it’s not a
> technology that is relied on – as long as it does not interfere..
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 18, 2017 1:54 PM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila
> *Cc:* James Nurthen; Repsher, Stephen J; WCAG
>
> *Subject:* Re: Is content on hover only a WCAG failure?
>
>
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> I think there is a bit of a disconnect here. It isn't whether or not the
> additional content is in-page, or linked content (you
>
> ​r​
>
> @longdesc example), but rather the following use-case:
>
>
>
> > Again, let’s extend that logic… Does that mean that if I have 5 buttons
> on the page that perform the same function, I only need to make one of them
> keyboard accessible? (Steve R)
>
>
>
> (Remember, this thread started with the question "*If content appears
> only on hover, i.e. the trigger is not focusable, does that *always*
> constitute a WCAG 2.0 failure?*")
>
>
>
> My initial reaction to
>
> ​Steve's
>
> scenario is "No - all of the buttons would need to be keyboard
>
> ​ ​
>
> accessible" (even though, as
>
> ​<
>
> button
>
> ​>​
>
> s, they already are)
>
> ​. But extending upon that, if supplemental information (content) for
> those buttons​ *is* being provided via @title on all five of those
> 'widgets', then yes, all 5 widgets need to expose that information (even if
> it is the same information for all 5 instances), which seems to be in
> disagreement with James' assertion.
>
> Or do others disagree with that?
>
> ​ (I am also assuming we agree that *onmouseover=”showTooltip()”​ *alone
> is insufficient and a failure of 2.1.1)
>
>
>
> The problem then is getting to the content, not how the content is
> functionally being provided in code (which, sadly, is why even though
> @longdesc is a conformant attribute, its lack of universal user-agent
> support significantly weakens its usefulness in production. But hey, with
> regard to @longdesc, I tried. :-) )
>
>
>
> ​JF​
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with James – the WCAG conformance requirements indicate that
> alternative content can be used on the same or different page to make the
> page conformant as long as it does not interfere.  This is a core principle
> of WCAG – so it is a little alarming that this coming up in 2017.
>
>
>
> Sometimes, supplemental information may be available from another page for
> information on a page. The longdesc attribute in HTML is an example. With
> longdesc, a long description of a graphic might be on a separate page
> that the user can jump to from the page with the graphic. This makes it
> clear that such content is considered part of the Web page, so that
> requirement #2 is satisfied for the combined set of Web pages considered as
> a single Web page. Alternatives can also be provided on the same page. For
> example creating an equivalent to a user interface control. (
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/conformance.html)
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> Jonathan Avila
>
> Chief Accessibility Officer
>
> *Level Access, inc.* (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)
>
> jon.avila@levelaccess.com
>
> 703.637.8957 <(703)%20637-8957> (Office)
>
> Visit us online: Website <http://www.levelaccess.com/> | Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/LevelAccessA11y> | Facebook
> <https://www.facebook.com/LevelAccessA11y> | LinkedIn
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/level-access> | Blog
> <http://www.levelaccess.com/blog/>
>
> *Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free
> webinars!* <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>
>
>
> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged
> and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
> *From:* James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 18, 2017 12:43 PM
> *To:* Repsher, Stephen J; John Foliot
> *Cc:* WCAG
> *Subject:* Re: Is content on hover only a WCAG failure?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/18/2017 6:27 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
>
> But title doesn't show on focus for mouse users (except on IE/Edge with
> recent windows) so the text is not available to most keyboard users.
> However, in this example it is not a problem as the title element is not
> really providing any content which is useful.
>
> *[Steve] Following that logic through to technology independence, that
> means you feel a custom tooltip using the onmouseover event only is okay in
> some situations?  Does that not contradict F54? *
>
> If it isn't providing a "function" then it would be ok - or if the same
> "function" were available in another way then yes it would be ok. F54 talks
> about being the only means to invoke the scripting function. If the
> scripting function is to display some information then so long as there is
> another way to display this information this would be ok.
>
>
>
> If I had provided a useful title in this example then it would be a
> failure except if I could get to that information easily in another way. So
> again - if content only appears on hover - it is not always a failure. It
> is not a failure if that information is either useless or easily available
> in another way for keyboard users.
>
> *[Steve] But if I follow the letter of the law in 2.1.1, there is no such
> exception.  It seems we must decide either the display of hover content is
> part of the functionality or it isn’t.  If you argue it isn’t then I
> suppose the question falls to 1.3.1, but again there’s no exception for
> useless or repetitive information.*
>
> 2.1.1 talks about functionality of the content where functionality is "
> processes <https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#processdef> and
> outcomes achievable through user action" and processes are "
>
> series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete
> an activity
>
> *Example 1: *Successful use of a series of Web pages on a shopping site
> requires users to view alternative products, prices and offers, select
> products, submit an order, provide shipping information and provide payment
> information.
>
> *Example 2: *An account registration page requires successful completion
> of a Turing test before the registration form can be accessed."
>
>
>
> If the content provided by hover is provided in another way then the
> processes and the outcomes are achievable through user action.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards, James
>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918
> <+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com
> Oracle Corporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=500+Oracle+Parkway+%7C+Redwood+City,+CA+94065&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect
> the environment
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> John Foliot
>
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
>
> Deque Systems Inc.
>
> john.foliot@deque.com
>
>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>