Re: WCAG 2.2 issue - Visible controls

Hi Alastair,
I added a comment, not on the COGA question, but on the actual validity of 
the scenario described. I've included 5 screenshots to make the 
interactions clearer. Hopefully these can aid dicussion within the COGA 
group.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1905#issuecomment-951000425


The key piece of information to convey: in my opinion, there is no failure 
of Visible Controls here, but with a slight modification in behaviour of 
the Edge example, it could have been a failure.

Michael Gower
Senior Consultant in Accessibility
IBM Design


1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   "Alastair Campbell" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
To:     "COGA TF" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Cc:     "WCAG 2.x issues list (public-wcag2-issues@w3.org)" 
<public-wcag2-issues@w3.org>
Date:   2021/10/22 08:36 AM
Subject:        [EXTERNAL] WCAG 2.2 issue - Visible controls



Hi everyone, We had an interesting question that we’re trying to process, 
but I was hoping for some advice. https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1905 
There are a couple of questions, but the main one is: 
‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍‍ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi everyone,
 
We had an interesting question that we’re trying to process, but I was 
hoping for some advice.
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1905

 
There are a couple of questions, but the main one is:
“Would visible text informing the user of the presence of these components 
(and how to activate them) be considered sufficient?”
 
So, rather than having an icon next to something to indicate it has 
further controls, you might have some text elsewhere on the pages saying 
something like "hover over the content areas to get the controls".
 
By the letter of the current criterion, I think this would currently pass, 
but is that meeting the need?
 
So far we have assumed proximity, but with instructions that may not be 
the case.
 
Kind regards,
 
-Alastair
 
-- 
 
@alastc / www.nomensa.com