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

Re: A Guide to the "Essential" survey

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:46:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDb6bwsrwx501fJFfLZnhCuaS-Tp_Wi2OwNYojcnqy=XKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> * I would prefer the discussion to take place in the working group as a
whole rather than in a Task Force. *

​I'm fine with that
... my point is that we have one pull request with a ton of changes, most
of which are rubber stamps, 3 of which require some iterative discussion
​ which is evident in the survey results​
.
​ Let's pass the rubber stamp items, ​and cover the others in separate
issues.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

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 Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:14 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

> I concur with Steve’s analysis, noting that a definition of “visual
> identifier” (of a user interface component) would be desirable, as it
> appears to be a term created by this working group that is not used
> elsewhere. I also agree with Steve that defining the term is a separate
> issue from what we’re currently discussing.
>
>
>
> *From:* Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 9:54 AM
> *To:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; David MacDonald <
> david100@sympatico.ca>; Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie>
> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: A Guide to the "Essential" survey
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
>
>
> I agree with Jason here and note that LVTF participants, including myself,
> have taken the survey and shown good support.  That said, you stated that
> these are all “normative changes”, but that is a bit subjective considering
> the existing normative language is completely illogical.  For the 3 you
> identified:
>
>
>
> # UI Component Contrast
>
> > I agree there is a problem, it may be "mostly redundant" but I think
> something is lost by removing essential
>
>
>
> Right now, “essential visual identifiers” means evaluate the criterion for
> identifiers that don’t conform, so what you perceive is lost is simply a
> brain tie to the dictionary definition.  I see 2 ways to ease our comfort
> by seeing the word “essential” there:
>
>    1. Provide plenty of Understanding content that goes into detail about
>    what “identifies” and what doesn’t for typical components.  Glenda is
>    already doing a great job of this and there is a note on the SC to get you
>    started.
>    2. Create a normative definition for “visual identifier”.
>
> I would suggest we take option #1 to fix the logic problem, and file a
> separate issue if #2 is necessary.
>
>
>
> # Adapting Text
>
> > I agree there is a problem, but removing essential is a normative
> change, that increases the requirement on authors. Now they have to ensure
> that the fonts etc can be swapped without ANY loss of content or
> functionality instead of swapping without essential loss.
>
>
>
> Right now, it says no loss of content or functionality that doesn’t
> conform, which makes zero sense, so I disagree that the change increases
> requirements.  Furthermore, the introduction of the word here has a very
> brief history, and someone has yet to identify a loss that should be
> considered “essential”.  Until such time, I would reject the need for an
> exception based on acceptance criteria #6:
>
> “6. Apply to all content unless preconditions for the application of the
> success criteria are explicitly identified (e.g. "except interruptions
> involving an emergency")”
>
>
>
> # Content on Hover or Focus
>
> > I agree there is a problem, but swapping essential for "pure
> decoration" is a normative change, there is a difference.
>
>
>
> Yes, there is a difference: “essential” things are exceptions that cannot
> be made to conform (zero sense in context), while “pure decoration” is
> stuff that can be lost here because it doesn’t have any information or
> functionality tied to it.  The latter is the true intention here and you
> can go back to the GitHub comments to see it.  It is meant to say that the
> additional content (popup, tooltip, etc.) is okay to obscure types of
> things that fit the “pure decoration” definition exactly, and anything else
> would fail to meet the user need to see the trigger.  Again this goes back
> to the acceptance criterion #6 – please identify something that needs to be
> an exception that isn’t covered by “pure decoration”.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* White, Jason J [mailto:jjwhite@ets.org <jjwhite@ets.org>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 04, 2017 9:00 AM
> *To:* David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Joshue O Connor <
> josh@interaccess.ie>
> *Cc:* Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: A Guide to the "Essential" survey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca
> <david100@sympatico.ca>]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 4, 2017 7:46 AM
>
> ### User Interface Component Contrast [question 10]
>
> > "essential visual identifiers".... My logic is that saying "essential"
> is mostly redundant with the word "identifier", i.e. if something visual is
> identifying the type of component or its state, then it is always essential.
>
>
>
> >I agree there is a problem, it may be "mostly redundant" but I think
> something is lost by removing essential ...  I think we should pause on
> fixing this one, and bring it back to the LVTF, and fix it separately.
>
> *[Jason] I don’t think anything valuable is lost by removing “essential”,
> and I would prefer the discussion to take place in the working group as a
> whole rather than in a Task Force. The LVTF participants would be welcome
> and encouraged to contribute, of course, but I think the group as a whole
> can bring greater expertise to bear on the issue.*
>
>
>
> ### Adapting Text [question 3]
>
> I agree there is a problem, but removing essential is a normative change,
> that increases the requirement on authors. Now they have to ensure that the
> fonts etc can be swapped without ANY loss of content or functionality
> instead of swapping without essential loss...  I think we should pause on
> fixing this one, and bring it back to the LVTF, and fix it separately.
>
> *[Jason] Same comment as above.*
>
>
>
> ### Content on Hover or Focus [question 6]
>
> > The use here is meant to say that decorative content is okay to obscure,
> so this draft rewords the sentence to link to the definition of "pure
> decoration" instead.
>
>
>
> I agree there is a problem, but swapping essential for "pure decoration"
> is a normative change, there is a difference. I think we should pause on
> fixing this one, and bring it back to the LVTF, and fix it separately.
>
> *[Jason] My comment is the same as above. I think it is a normative
> change, but a desirable one.*
>
>
>
> *It was proposed in yesterday’s meeting that we replace “essential” with
> synonymous expressions, then subsequently make any further normative
> changes to clarify what it means. I’m not opposed to this in principle, but
> I am concerned that it would involve two CfCs rather than one and thus
> consume valuable time – especially if there is agreement to replace
> “essential” with more precise and better defined concepts in specific
> instances.*
>
> *I don’t think any of the proposals for change related to this issue are
> editorial, except perhaps those that just link to the definition of
> “essential” but leave the word itself in place. The rest are all
> substantive.*
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
>
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2017 20:46:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:17 UTC