- From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 19:09:35 +0000
- To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E01A5468-A3B8-47C1-A2D7-192DC9FAD27A@adobe.com>
Purpose of controls 546: conventional name not defined. Why calling out markup languages? Concerned about implementation issues. 538: lists are too prescriptive 486: conventional name not defined 466: concerned that techniques are not sufficiently available or supported 427: glossary lists inconsistent and poor quality (editorial) 426: The inclusion of specification-length glossary items is a blocker for IBM 416: helpful for PWD but concerned about testability. Internationalization issues also. 402: conventional name not defined 391: concerned about i18n and clarity overall 382: suggests adding search related conventional names 381: suggests including “log in” and “log out” in conventional names. 340: concern about defining items in a list Contextual information 547: Is this vocabulary planned for ARIA? Difficult to test. 487: encourages title attribute use (1.3.4?) 432: need to define “publicly available vocabulary” 431: question about CI for symbols like “*” 430: people will confuse use of “region” with ARIA region 429: concern about overlap with 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 for reporting 428: concern about glossary def – “position in a process”, and “relationship to other objects and processes” 410: need to define “publicly available vocabulary” 399: Why at AAA instead of AA? 342: Concern about “publicly available vocabulary” 334: Concern about “publicly available vocabulary” Zoom Content 548: key concept is reflow, not zoom. Prefers 400%. Perhaps should be blocks of text? 488: seems to require responsive design, will be costly to implement in older apps that are still being maintained. 467: Not realistic for complex applications to fit on a tiny screen. 434: Concern that this isn’t technology neutral. 433: SC wording is cumbersome to read and understand 415: Concerns about support in PDF. 414: Concerns about testing in PDF. 343: Implementability concerns 335: Concern that zooming isn’t always required and that was a core idea. Graphics Contrast 549: Should be an exception for photos 534: Should exclude images of text. Question about “adjacent color” 533: What if there are other ways to get the same info? 525: Concern about images of text 523: What if the image is intended as a complement to textual information? 522: What about screenshots? An exception? 489: having 2 different ratios is problematic for testing. 3:1 468: scope is too broad – should be only actionable items that don’t have text. 435: clarification needed on how color gradations and pixilation is handled 413: Concerned about negative effects from 1.4.13 and 1.4.10, especially for PDF 346: Should be 3:1. 344: Concern about implementability 181: implementation concerns User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum) 550: visual identifiers of UI components needs def 532: visual identifiers of UI components needs def 528: title is confusing 490: Suggests 3:1 ratio 437: Should include mention of “text cursor” 436: suggests modification of 2.4.7 definition 424: concern about dotted focus outlines 384: Agrees with 3:1 ratio 345: Large number of comments Adapting Text 551: restrict to blocks of text? 469: Concern that it is too hard to test 438: suggestion on rewording for the note 418: needs name change or to be in different GL? 409: “client” used in SC but “user agent” used in SC 390: i18n concerns 389: font-family changes would need to consider i18n 388: line height / para spacing i18n concerns 349: Perhaps restrict to CSS? 348: overriding text color, background color, and font-family 347: suggests “OPEN” captions in the exception Content on Hover or Focus 552: confused about hover condition 499: concern about repositioning 491: Telling difference between UA and content issues 471: Telling difference between UA and content issues 439: suggestion for understanding content 350: concern about visible trigger 333: concern about essential Timeouts 555: includes unsubmitted data? 475: very hard to do. Security implications. 449: supports at start of process. Needs better scoping. 448: User inactivity needs to be defined 403: suggest splitting into “warn” and “extend” criteria 351: Suggest 20 hours Animation from Interactions 450: suggests further research to get to a AA SC 352: unclear if means to cancel animation or to avoid it Interruptions (Minimum) 554: concern about readiness of SC. 529: session timeout warnings? 493: does emergency need to be linked to def? Needs to consider v. important messages 474: more specifics are needed for types of interruptions 447: error messages need to be an exception 446: suggests removal of “changes of content” 445: suggests linking “change of content” if kept 444: remove “easily” 443: needs more review. 182: concern about “easily available” and scope of types of interruptions. Exceptions for emergency and real-time cases. Accessible Authentication 553: not clear on what this is restricting 542: several security concerns 503: Suggests move to AA or AAA due to implementation challenges 473: impractical to implement 442: invalidates various two-factor authentication processes 441: "not achievable due to legal requirements" is insufficient 440: should be moved to AA 354: “not clear how this provision works” Not ready for A/AA Character Key Shortcuts 556: If this rules out accesskey then disagree 530: voice recognition and key remapping questions 501: clarification still needs to be made as to where a single key shortcut is acceptable and where it is not (relates to pull #512) 451: suggest incorporating user preference Accessible Name (Label in Name) 557: disagree. Should be able to set name of “MM” to “2 digit month” 452: suggests adding “persistent” 419: concern about “accessible name” Target Size & Target Size (No exception) 559: if plain text links disallowed then disagree 558: related to 559 480: useful BP, hard to test manually, not practical for links and some icons 420: concern about “in-page” term 358: impractical on most pages 357: too many exceptions to be useful 332: variety of concerns Pointer Gestures 505: like the SC but “single untimed pointer gesture” is confusing 495: concern about making UI more complex 478: complex SC language (commenter likes Detlev’s suggestion) 457: concerned about disallowing "double clicks" and "drag and drop" gestures 456: concerned about implications for non-web sw and docs 455: seeking clarification in Understanding docs 356: clarifying broad applicability/terminology Concurrent Input Mechanisms 458: Concerned that is difficult to test positively 359: need better name and fix the grammars Orientation 509: resolved? 496: How to handle devices that do not always permit orientation changes 465: initial comment resolved, follow up = #496 461: comment about exception for "slides for a projector or television" 361: Not clear how orientation is a sensor input 360: clarification about content locking vs User agent. 336: concern about “essential” 265: author vs. User agent concern 193: user agent concern with wording Device Sensors 560: comment on use of “essential” 481: will be hard to test 459: intent not clear from title and SC text Accidental Activation 561: suggestion on reversibility wording 380: clarification needed around drag and drop, 2x/3x click, single pointer 364: clarification needed re: user agent impact 330: concern that language is too technology-specific Change of Content 562: Suggesting simpler resolution to move focus to added content 544: Issue tracking latest revisions (gower, repsher, DMacD) 541: concern about too many updates 539: SC is not needed 531: Programmatic relationship not sufficient (?) 527: What does “delivered to user agent” mean? 502: moving focus to start of changed section should be sufficient, but isn’t 482: scope too wide, not achievable in complex apps 464: suggested modifications to “user has been advised” bullet 463: Programmatic notification not defined 462: SC should not require user notification directly 385: concern about excessive feedback (e.g. games) 365: Programmatic notification not defined Multiple 372: Concern about use of “essential” Thanks, AWK Andrew Kirkpatrick Group Product Manager, Accessibility Adobe akirkpat@adobe.com http://twitter.com/awkawk
Received on Monday, 6 November 2017 19:10:02 UTC