Re: Is content on hover only a WCAG failure?

> It is not a failure if that information is either useless or easily
available in another way for keyboard users.

The problem here being the definition of "useless", which in James' usage
is a subjective assessment: what may be "useless" to James may have value
to somebody else (including, presumably, the content author, who provided
that "useless" content originally).

Then (to my mind) there is also the difference between "function" and
"content", as well as the unfortunate way that browsers (and screen
readers) have handled @title over the years.

In Stephen's first example:

<label>Reason<input type=”text” … aria-describedby=”tooltip”></label><img
src=”help-icon.png” … onmouseover=”showTooltip()”>

... I would argue that, because the author has explicitly scripted the
'showing' of the tool-tip, that the subjective second question ("is this
​'​
useless
​'​
or not?") does not factor into the equation: the author
​is consciously using a ​
scripted behavior that is not keyboard accessible
​.​
 This fails SC 2.1.1.​
​ - The End​
.
​


​In the second example however,

<img … alt=”blah” title=”more blah” tabindex=”0”>


...the 'showing' of the @title value is a "mechanism"​ afforded by some,
but not all, browsers. That's because, we already know that in certain
configurations, even the "mousing-over" of the element that contains the
@title value may not convey the information to the end user (because their
browser doesn't expose the @title tool-tip).

At that point, for me this isn't so much a WCAG failure, as a general
Usability / Comprehension failure *that impacts both PwD as well as
non-disabled users equally*. But even here, the 'usefulness' is almost
secondary, because we know that both disabled and non-disabled users will
be having the same issue: the lack of discoverability of the value string
associated to @title today.

In the end, this is a failure, of that I think most would agree, and as an
experienced evaluator and accessibility evangelist, I would certainly point
this out to any client. Whether or not I would call it as a WCAG Failure
would be, as Patrick indicated, dependant on other factors, but in either
case, the "usefulness" of the content, while important, still seems to me
to be slightly out of scope here: I am focused on the functionality and
delivery of the content, and not the usefulness of that content, which will
always be a subjective determination.

JF


On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 18/10/2017 01:26, James Nurthen wrote:
> [...]
>
>> But title doesn't show on focus for mouse users (except on IE/Edge with
>> recent windows) so the text is not available to most keyboard users.
>> However, in this example it is not a problem as the title element is not
>> really providing any content which is useful.
>>
>> If I had provided a useful title in this example then it would be a
>> failure except if I could get to that information easily in another way. So
>> again - if content only appears on hover - it is not always a failure. It
>> is not a failure if that information is either useless or easily available
>> in another way for keyboard users.
>>
>
> As ever... "it depends (tm)". Things need to of course be evaluated in
> their specific context.
>
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>


-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion