Re: Comments on proposed new SC 2.5.3

If that's the way it reads, that is not the intention. Here is the pseudo
language.

When stuff can be done with event up then one of following is true

   - do the thing that can be done (use event up)
   - otherwise have fallbacks (2 bullets points)
   - other wise it shouldn't be done because its a spacegun, or piano
   etc.......

Do you have a suggestion to improve the language ...

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 19/04/2016 17:19, David MacDonald wrote:
>
>> I think there is plenty of precedence in WCAG for this type of
>> conditional statement which starts with "**When** x condition applies, y
>> characteristic is a passing condition". See below.
>>
>
> It's not the "when" that I'm saying is weird. What is weird is that you're
> making the "up-event", which the SC is requiring, one of the possible ways
> to achieve the SC...it's circular reasoning, and THEN you have other ways
> of achieving it.
>
> >         2.5.3 Up-Event Activation: When single touch and/or pointer
> >         activation  can be triggered with the up-event, at least one of
> the following is
> >         true (Level A):
> >
> >         ​- ​Activation is on the up event,
> >         - Confirmation is provided which can dismiss activation,
> >         ​- ​ Activation is reversible,
> >         ​- ​ A mechanism is available to allow the user to trigger
> activation
> >         on the  up-event,
> >         ​- ​  Timing of activation is essential; waiting for the
> up-event would invalidate the activity.
>
> So what you're saying is:
>
> "X: when x, one of the following is true:
>
> - x
> - other things"
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>