- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:22:12 -0600
- 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