Re: Hoverable condition for Content on Hover or Focus

On 12/1/2017 12:52 PM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
>
> Again, at least one person has found all previous iterations 
> confusing, but you seemed to have gotten the point on the first try.  
> The intended requirement to a content author for this condition have 
> been exactly the same since this was put into the draft.  I don’t see 
> what other way the language could be taken.
>
Do you really think this was my first time reading this? I'm fully aware 
of what the SC is trying to do. I don't think this language accomplishes 
the goal. Previous versions were far better IMO. The current doesn't 
make any sense.
>
> If this objection came earlier in the week before CFC, I’d be trying 
> again, but changes are up to the editors at this point and I don’t 
> want to lose the more significant and important changes to the other 
> conditions.
>
There are far too many meetings to keep up with everything going on at 
the moment. As well as WCAG I have numerous work deadlines and ARIA 
practices deadlines approaching. I can't take time to attend every 
meeting. I'm trying to keep up via the CFCs - and am generally only 
objecting when I think something is really unclear. This fits that criteria.

> My suggestion to the editors would simply be to add the word “over” 
> after hover (since most people don’t use one without the other), so it 
> would read: “…, then the pointer can be moved to hover over the 
> additional content.”  The advantage to saying it this way is that it 
> makes the user method clearer.  If need be, we can reword for CR.
>
This vastly improves it but I do not agree that such a change is 
editorial. If the editors think it is then I am happy to cede that to 
them and make that change.

> Steve
>
> *From:*James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, December 01, 2017 1:26 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Hoverable condition for Content on Hover or Focus
>
> I don't think I can live with the language - I find it really 
> confusing and don't think changes to something like that are editorial.
>
> Regards,
>
> James
>
> On 12/1/2017 10:19 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
>
>     Hi James,
>
>     I wanted to respond to your objection to the latest CFC language:
>
>     > The hoverable statement makes no sense and needs revising. I
>     don't understand what "hover the additional content". Does it mean
>     "The additional content remains visible while the pointer is over
>     the additional content"?
>
>     Yes, that’s exactly what it means.  A previous iteration said
>     something similar to your suggestion and I cannot recall why it
>     was changed at the moment, but coming up with a way to state this
>     condition that no one finds confusing has been a bit of a
>     challenge.  I did my best to explain this condition in detail in
>     the draft Understanding
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__rawgit.com_w3c_wcag21_content-2Don-2Dhover-2Dor-2Dfocus_understanding_21_content-2Don-2Dhover-2Dor-2Dfocus.html&d=DwMFAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=CIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I&m=dlRwEi6RDSwyusPanDx8QlQr8dCVuhrEfFQU7MX0na4&s=qKMhHRhwouEwWkBOFfuBNetQ99P5QjsqTx5zUcfZ7lA&e=>,
>     and there’s also Example 2 to visually show the importance.  (Note
>     I still need to update from Visible Trigger to Dismissable in the
>     understanding, but the rest is applicable.)
>
>     Can you live with this knowing we can work on this editorially?
>
>     *Steve Repsher*
>
>     Twitter
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_steverep&d=DwMFAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=CIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I&m=dlRwEi6RDSwyusPanDx8QlQr8dCVuhrEfFQU7MX0na4&s=hNdCCGDZj12umeWnubs6dIBX_eOdG5bS0PvmVNmPxLw&e=>
>     | LinkedIn
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_steverepsherjr_&d=DwMFAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=CIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I&m=dlRwEi6RDSwyusPanDx8QlQr8dCVuhrEfFQU7MX0na4&s=d8oYesU2Vry6Amqpj6HO7-R8ZIrdiYLo4I30nG8cv-Q&e=>
>     | GitHub
>     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_steverep&d=DwMFAg&c=RoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE&r=CIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I&m=dlRwEi6RDSwyusPanDx8QlQr8dCVuhrEfFQU7MX0na4&s=_2nr90C7jfZuZMdlKuxmEESAQwQDOEnUgwaMIKBgsZg&e=>
>
> -- 
> Regards, James
>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 
> 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
> <sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
> OracleCorporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help 
> protect the environment
>

-- 
Regards, James

<http://www.oracle.com> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing 
practices and products that help protect the environment