- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:46:26 -0400
- 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>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDb6bwsrwx501fJFfLZnhCuaS-Tp_Wi2OwNYojcnqy=XKg@mail.gmail.com>
>> * 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