Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed interfaces?

I agree with going back to using popup, or something similar and then
defining it.

For me, "overlay" makes me think of a light box, dialogue box etc., which
is not generally a hover based popup... but could live with it if it's
defined or clear in another way the the SC is not talking about those
things.

I also hope we address the first bullet regarding closing the popup
"without moving the pointer". The pointer can't do anything without moving,
can 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 Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:53 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> I think we should explore this option to see whether it covers the desired
> cases – and only them.
>
>
>
> *From:* Melanie Philipp [mailto:melanie.philipp@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 9, 2018 8:35 AM
> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Cc:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>; Abma, J.D. (Jake) <
> Jake.Abma@ing.nl>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Repsher, Stephen J <
> stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Issue 650 Does the Hover or focus SC apply to tabbed
> interfaces?
>
>
>
> Did you explore the word "overlay"? As in:
>
>
>
> "When pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content* that
> overlays other content*, the following are true:"
>
>
>
> Perhaps no new definition would be required with this approach.
>
>
> Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS
> Senior Digital Accessibility Consultant
> 540-848-5220 <(540)%20848-5220>
> www.deque.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deque.com&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Ce8e6783165f245ebfec608d55765cf55%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636511017148326835&sdata=l5ZDl1U%2BmyHTTmbDvxEhoE1kpRrgVYmZupozmjm7gWM%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 7:59 AM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 9, 2018 5:00 AM
>
>
>
> I agree it would help to have something like ‘pop-over’ as the target of
> the SC. I’m fairly sure we did at one stage, Steve (CCed) might be able to
> remember why we dropped that?
>
> *[Jason] The term was used (with disagreement about whether it should be
> “popup” or “popover”), but I don’t recall there being a definition. It was
> relatively uncontroversial, as I recall, that these terms did not have a
> generally accepted meaning that was clear or precise enough to meet our
> testability requirements.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>