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

Re: Metadata On Hover SC Text

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:22:12 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvfbOKmzuBCSi-iYph6QRMgWxn65n5czzyoTnHayus1fCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Good point, Katie. SC should define success :-)

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 11/18/16, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well I *think* SC have to be phrased to define success. So even though that
> language might cover the issue, I do not we should phrase it that way.
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
> 703-371-5545
>
> On Nov 18, 2016 8:10 AM, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 18 November 2016 14:22:45 UTC

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