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

RE: Metadata On Hover SC Text

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:00:15 +0000
To: "public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB27806CE22D4B02CB1D5CFF6E9BB00@DM5PR03MB2780.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> I would be very happy with it but am not sure if others would be. What kinds of push back could we anticipate?

I'd imagine people would ask about fly out menus, modal dialogs, roll overs, etc.    I'd assume if something appeared on focus and remain apparent on focus then it would pass this requirement?

I'm concerned about the text "does not obscure other content" because any hamburger menu or dialog will obscure other content.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)



-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 8:10 AM
To: Alastair Campbell
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf
Subject: Re: Metadata On Hover SC Text

Hi Alastair and all,

Thank you. I agree it is an issue for both use cases. The cleanest way to address it would be to use your latest proposed language as there would be no testing.

For everyone that SC language again is:

> Informational content which only appears on-hover *must not be* 
> necessary for understanding and *must not obscure other content*.

I would be very happy with it but am not sure if others would be. What kinds of push back could we anticipate?

Thoughts everyone?

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On Nov 17, 2016 4:57 PM, "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:

> Hi Laura,
>
>> The original issue was the cursor overlapping the tooltip content 
>> making the tooltip text unreadable.
>
> Ah, I thought we had established previously that is a user-agent issue?
> Apologies, looking back it was a common issue, just not universal.
>
> So if we try to cover cursor overlapping, then logically if someone 
> relies on tooltips then it will happen. There is no need to test, it will occur.
>
> Therefore, tooltips should not be relied on. At all.
>
> Also, the first part of the evidence included someone doing testing 
> that showed the tooltip obscured an important link, and I think Wayne 
> mentioned that as an issue as well?
>
> It is an issue both ways – the tooltip being obscured, and the tooltip 
> obscuring other content.
>
> In which case we can simplify to:
>
> ------------
>
> Informational content which only appears on-hover *must not be* 
> necessary for understanding and *must not obscure other content*.
>
> ------------
>
> I.e. it shouldn’t matter if it is visible, readable or not.
>
> That seems to cover the evidence/benefits on the wiki, is it too harsh?
>
> -Alastair

Received on Friday, 18 November 2016 14:00:51 UTC

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