W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-agwg-comments@w3.org > June 2021

WCAG 2.2 public comment

From: Chris Pycroft <chris@intopia.digital>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 07:00:54 +0000
To: "public-agwg-comments@w3.org" <public-agwg-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <99A45885-998C-41E6-8155-E67080F1D926@intopia.digital>
Hi team,

Congratulations to all involved on the work for the latest draft for WCAG 2.2. We’re excited to see these getting closer to completion!

We (Intopia) collectively have some feedback on some of the proposed new SC.

2.4.11 Focus Appearance (Minimum)
The changes from the previous draft make it easier to read, especially moving the Contrast Area to the first bullet point. The part of the Understanding document that describes the difference between this SC and similar SCs is also very useful.

We're still finding it difficult to remember and explain to others that the calculation of the minimum area does not dictate the way that area is displayed. The name "Outline" makes it easy to assume that an area calculated by the Outline method must be displayed as an outline around the element, even though it could be displayed in several different ways.

It's also not clear why there are two methods. The Shape method will always give a smaller area for the focus indicator, and comes with a requirement for how it's displayed (the 2px). In practice this is useful for gradient and shape style indicators, but it's difficult to understand this until after you have tried both methods and experimented with how to display them. We suggest renaming the bullet points in the Minimum Area section, and possibly including a section in the Understanding of how to decide between the calculation methods.

It would be useful to have the Understanding document split to match the structure of the success criteria, and in the same order. The examples might have to be split between how to calculate the minimum area, and different ways to display the same size minimum area. They also need more detailed captions for the images - at the moment it's difficult to tell what they represent without reading all of the text before and after them.

2.5.8 Target Size (Minimum)
The edits make this much easier to read and understand than the previous version. We're assuming that the change from 44px to 24px plus a spacing exception will make sure that standard browser controls will pass if they have room between them, and that’s why the user agent exception has been removed. It will still allow us to fail any default browser controls which have been placed very close together so we can recommend that the client either customise them to make them larger or move them further apart.

3.2.6 Consistent Help
The new criteria is easier to understand. We would prefer it to say "access to each form of help" instead of "access to at least one form of help", but understand that this might make the requirement too difficult for a Level A criteria. The note about the help being either on the page or directly linked from the page is very useful.

3.2.7 Visible Controls
We like the new name – it's a positive expression of what's wanted rather than what we're trying to avoid. The first sentence is long and difficult to understand. We think it might be easier to read as "Information needed to identify that hidden user interface components are available should always be visible, except when..."

If you’d like some further clarification on our feedback, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us.


Chris Pycroft
e: chris@intopia.digital<mailto:chris@intopia.digital>
w: intopia.digital
[Intopia Logo]

(image/png attachment: image001.png)

Received on Friday, 4 June 2021 07:03:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 4 June 2021 07:04:19 UTC