W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: Editorial changes to SC

From: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 13:09:23 -0400
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Cc: AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0e21d8f0-7b90-6ae9-eb71-4fcb9cd7cafd@w3.org>
On 08/09/2017 11:20 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
> ​I could live with that rational... do you think we should remove 
> numbers where they are in WCAG 2?
> 1.4.8
> 3.3.4
> 3.3.6
It's a separate question as to whether we should change the WCAG 2.0 SC 
that are included in WCAG 2.1. For now I didn't touch those, under the 
rationale that we're keeping them exactly as they appear in WCAG 2.0 for 
now, to minimize confusion. However, we could decide that we want to 
apply at least editorial changes to make all of WCAG 2.1 
self-consistent; we will also soon explore whether we want to merge some 
WCAG 2.1 SC with existing 2.0 SC, in which case we would be changing 
them anyways. In either of those cases, yes I would like to apply the 
editorial changes to the 2.0 SC, but we won't have the decisions to 
support doing that before the upcoming WD publication.
> However, I would not like to loose the actual bullets such as has been 
> done in the current 2.1 draft. I don't think we want definition lists 
> instead of the bullets... missing the visual bullet I think hinders 
> comprehension.​
I think the definition list is important for semantics, it provides a 
semantic for the header that simply putting boldface text doesn't. 
However, I've said many times that I plan to improve the styling, and it 
initially makes sense to make it come out like bullets, looking the way 
it does in WCAG 2.0. I believe this to be possible with CSS but also 
believe it to be more tricky than one would hope.

If direct styling fails, it's also an option to have the script output 
the document as bullets with semanticless boldface headers (which is 
also what WCAG 2.0 does). But even in that case, for editorial ease I 
consider it important to keep them as definition lists in the source.

A very short background to why I'm pushing on this - for WCAG 2.0 we had 
a rich XML format with all sorts of semantics that helped us maintain 
and transform the document to different outputs. But that proved too 
hard for people who weren't extensively trained in the format to edit, 
so for 2.1 we decided to use HTML as our source, which has far fewer of 
the semantics we need but is easier for WG participants to author. I 
proposed the closest available semantic to our use cases, which in the 
case of list with headers is a definition list. We can use script and 
style to adjust the output - I'm not excellent at either so haven't done 
as much of those as I expect us eventually to want - but I consider 
having maximally semantic markup important for our later needs.

> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
> *Can**Adapt**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, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org 
> <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>     Using list numbering to refer to things is very brittle. Things
>     can change all the time in ways that affect numbering, and if we
>     start using particular numbers to refer to particular things and
>     don't want to change numbers as a result, it puts a major
>     constraint on our work for a fairly artificial reason.
>     I would also argue that ordered lists should only be used when
>     there is an inherent sequential order required for meaning in the
>     list. I did not find any SC where I believed that to be the case.
>     I think with any of these SC, if we changed the order of list
>     items the SC would mean the same thing.
>     If you want to be able to easily refer to list items in a SC, you
>     should use the lists with headers approach, used by many SC, and
>     implemented as definition lists in our source code. I personally
>     would like to see all SC use that pattern, but did not propose it
>     as a rule, and did not consider it merely editorial to introduce
>     that pattern to SC that weren't using it. If somebody wants to
>     make proposals we could decide to implement that on SC during the
>     normalization period of the next couple months, or the WG could
>     declare that editorial and delegate me to do it.
>     Michael
>     On 08/09/2017 2:51 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
>>     In general I think they look great and it helps a lot...
>>     I would like to discuss with the group the option of making all
>>     bulleted lists into orderded lists that are numbered... it would
>>     then be easier to refer to individual bullets in reports of
>>     conformance.
>>     For instance in User Interface components if referring to the
>>     part on Inactive components an evaluator could list.
>>     1.4.12 #2
>>     OR
>>     Currently many SCs don't have bullets OR numbers which is a
>>     departure from WCAG 2
>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#graphics-contrast
>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#graphics-contrast>
>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum
>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum>
>>     Even some of  the WCAG 2 SCs that have bullets in the original
>>     don't have them in the last draft.
>>     See the original 1.4.3
>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast
>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast>
>>     VS
>>     https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum
>>     <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum>
>>     And I think the latest draft is confusing without these bullets
>>     because it looks more like glossary terms than part of the SC text.
>>     Cheers,
>>     David MacDonald
>>     *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.*
>>     Tel: 613.235.4902 <tel:%28613%29%20235-4902>
>>     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 Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org
>>     <mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
>>         Following up on the QA checklist I sent around last week, I
>>         have done an editorial pass of the SC in WCAG 2.1. The
>>         changes I made are shown in:
>>         https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838b9fa5327b28b37dab
>>         <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838b9fa5327b28b37dab>
>>         Please let me know if you disagree that any of these changes
>>         are editorial. Most are simple things like punctuation, but
>>         in a couple places I moved clauses around to improve
>>         coherence and readability.
>>         I added a couple things to the QA checklist as I went, and
>>         implemented those in these edits:
>>         https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.1_QA_Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109
>>         <https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.1_QA_Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109>
>>         The change that I think might give people the most pause is
>>         Content on Hover or Focus
>>         (https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus
>>         <https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus>),
>>         where I changed
>>             "When content becomes visible when triggered by a user
>>             interface componentreceiving keyboard focus or pointer
>>             hover, the following are true, except where the visual
>>             presentation of the content is controlled by the user
>>             agent and is not modified by the author:"
>>         to
>>             "When a user interface componentwhich receives keyboard
>>             focus or pointer hovercauses content to become visible,
>>             the following are true:"
>>         and moved the exception to after the bullet list. I made this
>>         change because I was finding the dependent clauses to be very
>>         hard to follow. I think I didn't change meaning, but want to
>>         point this out for extra review in case you disagree this
>>         change was editorial.
>>         I plan to make a pass through terms as well but didn't get to
>>         that today.
>>         Michael
Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 17:09:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:16 UTC