Re: Possible draft of 3.2.7

Hi Sailesh,

The question we are struggling to answer, at least in a WCAG 2.x framework, is: What constitutes a visual cue?

I’m afraid placement of the guideline is a secondary consideration because if we can’t answer that, we’ll have to defer the SC.

Kind regards,

-Alastair


From: Sailesh Panchang
Alastair,
The question I have is why is this requirement not being considered
under Principle 1: Perceivable
The description on the "Understanding" page suggests all the groups
listed there are unable to perceive the controls.
This is not different from a piece of text  that is really a link but
has no underline or other visual distinctive trait to convey  that the
element is an operable element.
Depending on the context and functionality, if the controls get
exposed in a logical order, or by the presence of a visual cue (and
role/state etc.) the user is informed that user action is needed to
access child / related controls,  the content will be accessible.
That is what is covered by "Making Content Usable for People with
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities"
Is this not already covered by WCAG 2.0 SCs?
The Understanding doc for proposed SC 3.2.7 states: "Some design
approaches hide controls and require certain user interactions, such
as mouseover, to reveal them (both visually and programmatically)".
My take: Unless the design  includes a visual cue , even an individual
without any disability whatsoever will not be able to figure out that
the element needs to be operated upon via mouseover or such to reveal
related / child controls.
This is bad design impacting everyone and surely an accessibility barrier.
Thanks and respectfully,
Sailesh