Re: Simplifying popup interference

Hi Steve and all,

Steve wrote:

> I could certainly live with bullets how you stated them though because of
> the lack of unnecessary repetition.

Breaking up SC text and adding bullets improves readability.

For example per the Readability Test Tool [1] the proposed sentence
[2] has an average grade level of about 16. It should be understood by
21 to 22 year olds.

Detailed results:

* Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease: 26.3  
* Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 18.3  
* Gunning Fog Score: 17.4  
* SMOG Index: 10.1  
* Coleman Liau Index: 13.8  
* Automated Readability Index: 19.8

The bulleted list [3] has an average grade level of about 8. It should
be understood by 13 to 14 year olds.

Detailed results:

* Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease: 56.9  
* Flesch Kincaid Grade Level: 7.7  
* Gunning Fog Score: 8  
* SMOG Index: 6  
* Coleman Liau Index: 11.4  
* Automated Readability Index: 5.1

The Nielsen Norman Group explains more about how bullets aid usability
in the article, "7 Tips for Presenting Bulleted Lists in Digital
Content." [5] In an older study they found "People look at lists with
bullets more often than lists without bullets". [6]

Kindest Regards,
Laura

--- 
[1]
https://www.webpagefx.com/tools/read-able/check.php
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Jul/0085.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-low-vision-a11y-tf/2017Jul/0084.html
[4] 7 Tips for Presenting Bulleted Lists in Digital Content
[5] https://www.nngroup.com/reports/how-people-read-web-eyetracking-evidence/

On 7/21/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
> Laura, excellent point about the incorrectness of saying "presented".  I
> don't think "modified by the author" is really applicable here though unless
> I'm missing something?  If the only catch is title tooltips, the author has
> no control over the presentation at all.
>
> Regarding using cursor instead of pointer, I initially agreed then had to
> rewrite this reply.  Usually, but not always for sure, "pointer" will
> generically refer to the thing that moves with the mouse, while "cursor"
> refers to the position of the possibly blinking text insertion or selection
> point.  I believe the MATF new guideline is and some criteria are using the
> former, right?
>
> Correcting the exception though with a slight tweak on yours to actually
> mention popups in the exception, maybe:
>
> " Except where the popup presentation is controlled by the user agent, popup
> content does not render any of its triggering content invisible, and remains
> visible while pointer hover or focus is on the popup content."
>
> Where we define popup as " becomes visible only on pointer hover or focus”.
>
> I could certainly live with bullets how you stated them though because of
> the lack of unnecessary repetition.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2017 1:00 PM
> To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; Jim Allan
> <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Simplifying popup interference
>
> Hi Steve, Jim, and all,
>
> Here is another idea for rewording:
>
> Except where determined by the user agent and not modified by the author,
> popup content
>
> 1. Does not render any of its triggering content invisible.
> 2. Remains visible while pointer hover or focus is on the popup content.
>
> Would we want to consider swapping out the word "pointer" to "cursor"
> to be more generic and cover other types of cursors?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
>
> On 7/21/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>> Hey Jim,
>>
>> User agent control (e.g. title attribute tooltips) is something I
>> forgot to add, so good catch.
>>
>> Regarding focus inside the popup… First, I was trying to simplify by
>> not saying it needs to stay visible while hover or focus is on the
>> trigger because that’s inherent in the popup, right?  In other words,
>> if it appears on hover or focus of a trigger, then of course it stays
>> visible until that is removed (unless authors are out there building
>> timers into that content…hmm…).
>>
>> But really, I think we need to consider focus within a popup because I
>> find they contain links all the time.  The biggest example is a
>> navigation menu that works only on hover and focus.  Consider this
>> scenario:
>>
>> 1.       Extra content with a few toggles or links appear.
>>
>> 2.       I cannot see it that well so I realize I click down and miss my
>> target, so I move my pointer away before letting the button come up so
>> nothing is activated.
>>
>> 3.       Now focus is inside the popup and not on the trigger, so if the
>> content disappears then I need to start all over again, reorient my
>> vision to the menu, etc.  I only have one chance to get it right.  If
>> it stays visible, I have the chance to correct my mistake much more
>> easily, especially if I don’t need to worry about where my mouse is at
>> that point.
>>
>> I think it was Gmail that used to have a menu where this happened to
>> me all the time.
>>
>> I’m not in favor of elongating the wording to bullets unless it really
>> adds clarity, so assuming you agree with my focus argument, how about
>> just:
>>
>> “Except for popups presented by the user agent, popup content does not
>> render any of its triggering content invisible, and remains visible
>> while pointer hover or focus is on the popup content.”
>>
>> Now that I’m thinking about it again, what if the author creates a
>> popup that doesn’t appear directly adjacent to the trigger?  In that
>> scenario, I’d have no way to move my mouse onto it without it
>> disappearing.  Should we worry about that?  Anyone come across that in
>> practice?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> From: Jim Allan [mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 4:31 PM
>> To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
>> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Simplifying popup interference
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Repsher, Stephen J
>> <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
>> wrote:
>> ​<snip>​
>>
>>
>> If not, here’s some simplified wording perhaps to restart the engine:
>>
>> Popup Interference:
>> ​​
>> Popup content does not render any of its triggering content invisible,
>> and remains visible while pointer hover or focus is on the popup content.
>>
>> ​Popup Interference:
>> For content that appears on hover or focus, the following are true:
>> 1. ​
>> ​
>> Popup content does not render any of its triggering content invisible
>> 2. Popup content remains visible while the pointer is on the popup
>> content or focus is on the triggering content
>>
>> ​Except where
>>
>>   1.  User agent control: The
>> ​popup is ​
>> determined by the user agent and
>> ​is
>>  not modified by the author
>> ​.​
>> Reworded the second clause to cover different behavior for hover
>> pointer, and focus. Focus would stay on the triggering content and the
>> pointer is free to move around. the only way I can think that focus
>> would get into popup content is if the popup is a modal type window...
>> which is different from popup that are transient. That is, content
>> that does not need a specific close mechanism ([x] on modal windows).
>> The exception covers the "title" attribute popups and pointer
>> obscuring popup
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> And where we define popup as “becomes visible only on pointer hover or
>> focus”.
>>
>> Critique away…
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
>> Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
>> 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
>> voice 512.206.9315<tel:(512)%20206-9315>    fax:
>> 512.206.9264<tel:(512)%20206-9264>  http://www.tsbvi.edu/ "We shape
>> our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
>>
>
>
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Friday, 21 July 2017 19:04:37 UTC