W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > November 2016

RE: Metadata On Hover SC Text

From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:25:31 -0500
To: "'Laura Carlson'" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, "'Alastair Campbell'" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: "'public-low-vision-a11y-tf'" <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1cab01d24108$5cfa0a40$16ee1ec0$@gmail.com>
Laura,

Sounds like you had a good call....

I think we do need to define 'Fully Visible'.

Also how about adding covered to the obscured line?

Informational content which appears on hover that is necessary for understanding must be:
*  fully visible,
*  not covered or obscured,
*  available on focus as well as hover, and
*  available via any input method.

​​​​​



* katie *
 
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
 
Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog


-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 2:18 PM
To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Metadata On Hover SC Text

Hi all,

On the call today [1] we discussed changing the word "discernible" to "fully visible" as it is simpler and sometimes tooltips are clipped.
In addition we discussed changing  "not obscure other content" to simply "not obscured" to cover both use cases. So incorporating that and Alastair's and John's latest tweaks (thank you both), we have:

Informational content which appears on hover that is necessary for understanding must be:
*  fully visible,
*  not obscured,
*  available on focus as well as hover, and
*  available via any input method.

Does that work? I'm still thinking that it may not cover Wayne's use case. And perhaps Marla's?

Do we need to define "fully visible"? If so maybe "Within the viewport. Not clipped or truncated."?

Do we need to update the testability section? If so, anyone have suggested language?

Other thoughts?

Thanks.

Kindest Regards,
Laura
[1] https://www.w3.org/2016/11/17-lvtf-minutes.html#item05

On 11/17/16, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like this Alistair. Sorry about the switch on obscure
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
> * katie *
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
>
> Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile 
> |
> Office: 703-371-5545 | @ryladog
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 11:59 AM
> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea 
> GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Metadata On Hover SC Text
>
> Katie’s version had:
>> * not obscured by other content,
>
> That has been switched from “does not obscure other content” to “not 
> obscured by other content”, I think the first one was the intent?
>
> However, having a mouse-over that obscures other content is exactly 
> how drop-down menus are intended to work, it is too wide.
>
> How about:
> Informational content which appears on hover that is necessary for 
> understanding must:
> * be discernible,
> * not obscure other content, and
> * be available via any input method
>
> “Informational content” to remove navigation elements like menus, and 
> switching the obscure point back to the original intent.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>


--
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 19:26:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:23:23 UTC