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 08:25:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAOavpvdJyFuTKrb7Ccf_7nc56hiSvqkLkWfCR_k-Nkhv0vvZVg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Cc: "public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Jon and all,

So maybe we are back to:

== SC Text ==

Informational content which appears on hover that is necessary for
understanding must be:

* fully visible
* available via any input method.

== Related Glossary additions or changes ==

Fully visible: content within the viewport that is not covered,
obscured, clipped, or truncated and remains in the viewport as long as
the user needs it.

== Testability ==

For each item of content that is shown by hovering your mouse over an
element, check that the content shown on hover:

1. is fully visible.
2. available via any input method.

Expected Results

* Check #1, #2 are true.

What do you think? Would that work? Ideas for improvement?

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 11/18/16, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 18 November 2016 14:25:47 UTC

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