Re: Editorial changes to SC

+1 for the DL approach

________________________________
From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2017 9:59 PM
To: Michael Cooper
Cc: AG WG
Subject: Re: Editorial changes to SC

Hi Michael

I've put up an example of our DL code with some CSS to make the <dt> and <dl> inline and placed a background image for a bullet on the <dt>.

Feel free to use this code if you find it useful and save an hour or so of fiddling with CSS.

http://davidmacd.com/test/definition-list-with-bullets.html




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, Sep 8, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org<mailto:cooper@w3.org>> wrote:
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.

Michael




Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902<tel:(613)%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 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
1.1.12.2

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/#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

VS
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



CanAdapt 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


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


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), where I changed

"When content becomes visible when triggered by a user interface component receiving 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 component which receives keyboard focus or pointer hover causes 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






-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------