- From: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 21:00:32 +0000
- To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
- CC: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0442e6540cfa4f5cb67149412882a842@XCH15-08-08.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Hi Mike, I really would be happy to keep working on this language, so long as the intention and actual requirements remain the same at this point. The issue is that we’re out of time for what language will go into the CR. At least in my mind, those types of changes fall under “editorial” so would be on the table during the CR period. Critiquing your suggestion to use “temporarily”, that implies to me a scope of only additional content with a time factor, which is the small minority of content we’re trying to affect. The best I can say is that I will work hard on beefing up the Understanding document to make all these little subtlety’s as clear as possible. This is simply not an easy SC to put into crystal clear language. Steve From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 1:49 PM To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Discussiong for Updated Response to issue 650/655/695/711 on Content on Hover or Focus Okay, so 650 is talking about a tab list in the sense that ARIA 1.0 defined it (where moving left/right arrows changes the tab with focus as well as 'activating' it so that the tab panel content is also updated). I've always hated that implementation, and here it is causing another headache... The language in the 1.1 Authoring Practices doc softens the requirement for this tab panel update, but it is still the encouraged behaviour. So yes, it does complicate things. My concern is that your new wording is really difficult to parse. This could be addressed either by putting a qualifier in "Dismissable" or more revisions to the opening phrase. For the latter approach, how about: > Where pointer hover or keyboard focus causes additional content to become temporarily visible, the following are true: Michael Gower IBM Accessibility Research 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 From: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>> To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> Date: 2018-01-18 09:45 AM Subject: Discussiong for Updated Response to issue 650/655/695/711 on Content on Hover or Focus ________________________________ -1 Sorry, but the SC preliminary text is incomprehensible now. I tried taking a stab at correcting this, but I don't like my version. [Steve] Obviously I disagree, and the reviewers I was able to get gave a thumbs up as well. I’ll try to explain more below, but your objection seems to be 100% editorial and we can adjust that after CR. Bottom line is there was not enough time to wordsmith this perfectly. > Where receiving pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers additional content to become visible, and removing hover or focus causes the additional content to be hidden, the following are true: [Steve] That’s fine too, just much less succinct. It says the exact same thing though. Perhaps if the additional content become the subject of the text? [Steve] I’ve tried that too and it’s not better IMHO. I don't understand why the accommodation was made for 650, since a tab panel's content is updated on activation, not on hover. What that comment may have exposed is that some things like tab items may be authored to include hover as well as selection as a means of updating the tabpanel. If that is the case, this SC needs to be revamped to clarify that it is the dependency on hover to expose information that needs to be addressed. [Steve] Issue 650 has nothing to do with hover. The accommodation was made because a tab list, at least in some designs, operates where left/right arrow focus/select the next tab. Rather than arguing about the subtle differences between selection, activation, focus, etc., I made a simple change that reflects the true intention of the SC all along. The SC was designed for content which appears and disappears onhover() and onmouseout(), respectively, or onfocus() and onblur*(, respectively. A tab may appear onfocus(), but it does not disappear onblur(); it disappears if another tab gets focus. Here's a revision that I think addresses both issues: > When additional content is revealed or hidden based solely on a trigger item receiving keyboard focus or pointer hover, the following are true: [Steve] Sorry, this does not address #650 at all and the introduction of “solely” may be the usual case but doesn’t cover everything the SC should. Michael Gower IBM Accessibility Research 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>> Date: 2018-01-17 04:09 PM Subject: CFC - Updated Response to issue 650/655/695/711 on Content on Hover or Focus ________________________________ Call For Consensus — ends Friday January 19th at 7pm Boston time. The Working Group has discussed responses to the following issues: 650: (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/650<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_issues_650&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=cpDJdxSojDNYLgKFaxDMohL8afNINwvUlNVVvWAqPlk&e=>) 655: (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/655<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_issues_655&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=2zPYlzcahb8y8MYMPKorOJGbGs_peG6Eq7lDuiZ6c-Q&e=>) 695: (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/695<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_issues_695&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=h7AO8vSUVrMX0WUMAFIUdvTKCZ8zYDlA2M1Z2acF7bE&e=>) 711: (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/711<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_issues_711&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=GumvZbFcP7A6mSro0DXKjHL1ZeUVjlbiQkNmcoKj9Lg&e=>) Response to Issue 650: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues#650<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_WAI_GL_wiki_Draft-5FResponses-5Fto-5FDec-5FWD-5FIssues-23650&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=zXc9ICal1y921rW3XmDqMB6IsD_eRju2IhbhWDQ8lLI&e=> Response to Issue 655: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues#655<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_WAI_GL_wiki_Draft-5FResponses-5Fto-5FDec-5FWD-5FIssues-23655&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=WqQ1Q_eDhuENWToOa02V5lTpBn__vDw9h6Wp4ASvUfg&e=> Response to Issue 695: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues#695<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_WAI_GL_wiki_Draft-5FResponses-5Fto-5FDec-5FWD-5FIssues-23695&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=uZQ8puiJ8qVKBp4AlO1lruXY9oNUJ1k4yEszAeqeIp0&e=> Response to Issue 711: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues#711<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_WAI_GL_wiki_Draft-5FResponses-5Fto-5FDec-5FWD-5FIssues-23711&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=EAcxZgGw2-X01qPYh5JfVpyZEAxfM3b4SQoC5Soaxik&e=> The changes to the SC are implemented in this pull request: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/739<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_wcag21_pull_739&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=xaQRTWosnnuDlhnbv8pQQoAMndSp9WNb-yWXzHETLms&e=> The changed SC can be viewed here: http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/hover-focus-edits/guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rawgit.com_w3c_wcag21_hover-2Dfocus-2Dedits_guidelines_-23content-2Don-2Dhover-2Dor-2Dfocus&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=o0daxkHGHraHNw9i2iAgh1-u02Hps_TQhDkH1KZHuuQ&m=WkcnIBrFW1wiMy2Hzzv-J3EW6InU8cZqf260Q5bimzE&s=bIK0C6qwGcwnBw5g3Bx2N1MKIRXmGCtqPMBjiJdn2rA&e=> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline. Thanks, AWK Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636446629619786436-26sdata-3Dc5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA-252FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp-252Fht8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=BhX5fVaZ0KHczpC6tyw6xr1Rw9n3tVsC66AhfEw4u3k&s=Hs7EDDl8L7hDfaihpAi-p2cG22thib54VEIm652r-WI&e=>
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2018 21:01:05 UTC