- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 19:45:40 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 10/07/2023 19:40, Michael Livesey wrote: > > Do you seriously think they do it because of an advisory technique in > > WCAG? And not because, you know, they decided to do that already for > > aesthetic reasons? Ok... > > Yes, Patrick. I don't know about your development team, but we always > check the advisories. That's why they are there. Good for you. I suspect though that sites have been using mouse hover styles before there was an advisory technique buried deep in the recesses of WCAG non-normative documents... > But again, we have got lost in this discussion, and you still fail to > address the basic point but rather tangle us in strawman arguments. The > basic point is that focus on click, as far as my research has show, is > the desired UX for visually impaired users. I don't dispute that. But I dispute that we should make a one-size-fits-all recommendation that all sites must therefore always show focus indiscriminately, rather than using techniques that provide nuance and user agency on this (coupled with browser/user agents providing settings for users to make more explicit choices - for instance, Chrome already includes a setting that forces a focus indicator to flash regardless of mouse/keyboard/whatever, so similar settings in other browsers should be lobbied for). Also, strawmen or not...I'm not stopping you from proposing an advisory technique. PRs welcome, as they say... P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Monday, 10 July 2023 18:45:48 UTC