Re: CFC: 1.3.3/1.4.1 Errata

It is just commonplace  for instructions to reference UI components by
sensory characteristics: location, shape etc. as covered by 1.3.3.
It was like that over a decade ago and is not much different now.
Even if one gets  on a call for online support, the chap at the other
end  tells the caller to look for a particular green button  in the
right panel or such! And the user discovers it is not even marked up
as a button but that's a different matter.
And this has been experienced in the mobile applications world too. I
mean referencing a component by its location / color / shape.

SC 1.4.1 is completely different.
(In the preceding thread that lead upto this one, there was a comment
on how 1.4.1 is different from 1.3.3).

Even a bunch of text instructions  can cause  an SC 1.4.1 violation. Consider:
A list of instructions for an online application with some shaded,
say, orange and a few others in the same list that are a light blue.

A note at the end says: the user must comply with aall the orange
ones. It further states complying with the blue ones are not mandatory
but may help speeden the application processing.
And if the actual instructions do not convey this distinction with say
a prefix like 'Mandatory' /'Advisory' or such for the orange and blue
ones respectively, this causes a failure of 1.4.1.

This will not trigger 1.3.3 because the instructions per se is not a
component or a UI control.

I strongly believe,  an errata to normative WCAG 2.0 should be limited
to a bare minimum change. If a note only causes confusion and does not
add or detract from the SC then, sure, get rid of it through the
errata.
If people  are not interpreting the phrase 'such as' in the SC to
include 'color', clarify it via the Understanding doc and not a change
to the normative SC.
I will not stand in the way of the decision however.

Thanks and best wishes,
Sailesh


On 5/19/17, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> Ø  although I am wondering if 1.4.1 is redundant with 1.3.3
>
> 1.3.3 is specifically about instructions and goes beyond color.  1.4.1 is
> specifically about color.  It does seem odd that we have a SC for just
> instructions – why not have a sensory characteristics SC that addresses
> other aspects --- I assume in the past most of those things would have also
> been covered under 1.3.1 Info and Relationships – but going forward where we
> might have more modes such as scent/smell, and other senses in VR it might
> make sense for future guidelines to broaden the requirement.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 4:44 PM
> To: John Foliot
> Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
> Subject: Re: CFC: 1.3.3/1.4.1 Errata
>
> I'm fine with it...
>
> although I am wondering if 1.4.1 is redundant with 1.3.3
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>
>
> GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
>   Adapting the web to all users
>             Including those with disabilities
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy
> policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 3:21 PM, John Foliot
> <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>> wrote:
> +1, I support this change.
>
> JF
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick
> <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>> wrote:
> Call For Consensus — ends Tuesday May 23rd at 2:50pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group has discussed the addition of errata for 1.3.3 and 1.4.1
> on the list
> (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017AprJun/0650.html) and
> on the call on Thursday and the chairs believe that there is consensus for
> the changes that will be reflected in the errata
> (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/errata/) as editorial errata.
>
> After editorial errata:
>
> 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics: Instructions provided for understanding and
> operating content do not rely solely on sensory characteristics of
> components such as shape, color, size, visual location, orientation, or
> sound. (Level A)  (added “color, “)
> (note removed)
>
> 1.4.1 Use of Color: Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a
> visual element. (Level A)
> (note removed)
>
> For background:
> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/05/18-ag-minutes.html#item01
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being
> able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC
> deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>
>
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
>
>

Received on Saturday, 20 May 2017 02:57:06 UTC