RE: CFC - Issue 630 response

-1

I think Mike Gower has done a fantastic job of clearly explaining the need for this proposed Success Criterion.  I support this SC.  However, there seems to be a conflict between the notion that displaying tooltips on hover “is considered a poor interaction by many” (as mentioned in Mike’s proposed response) and what the current ARIA Authoring Practices 1.1 design pattern definition for Tooltip Widget<https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.1/#tooltip> states, which is “A tooltip is a popup that displays information related to an element when the element receives keyboard focus or the mouse hovers over it.”

My recommendation is to strike the following sentence from the last sentence of the proposed issue response:

“This is considered a poor interaction by many, since users may easily inadvertently trigger new content.”

There is unresolved debate on how to best handle accessible tooltip widget implementation, as evidenced by the discussion in the GitHub ARIA Practices issue #128<https://github.com/w3c/aria-practices/issues/128>.  There are pros and cons for using hover or focus to display new content, which are not equally represented in this issue response.

Removing the single sentence I suggested from Mike’s proposed response, in my opinion, avoids a potential conflict  between current guidance in the ARIA Practices and the issue response our working group wants to put forth to the public:

“As will be made clear in the Understanding document, this SC is not recommending or encouraging the use of On Hover or On Focus as the trigger for displaying new content. However, where an author elects to employ On Hover as a trigger, this SC places requirements on the implementation which make the resulting experience more accessible.”

Brooks

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 6:09 PM
To: WCAG
Subject: CFC - Issue 630 response
Importance: High

Call For Consensus — ends Thursday January 4nd at 7:00PM Boston time.

The Working Group has discussed a response to issue 630 (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/630).

The specific response is at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Draft_Responses_to_Dec_WD_Issues#630 , and it was surveyed at https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/resolving_issues_2/results#xq9 and received minor edits during the call that are reflected in the proposed response in the wiki.

Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2018/01/02-ag-minutes.html#item05


If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Ftwitter.com-252Fawkawk-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C54093524ef264326424008d51cd66c05-257Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1-257C0-257C0-257C636446629619786436-26sdata-3Dc5UP0xiniJIppvd6Esu1XA-252FbX1ykpABkhgCCmBp-252Fht8-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMGaQ&c=4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY&r=W3VUihr49D2x8upR4FtjMIsy0FSGEnqb4ghTiQJMtRw&m=0OrDuvG1ZyISPXoAxejA4mrh3Svw8Hp0hovEXmvRmKw&s=LOg_Is7sAiTCAX9vrCgyhwqhh_VapNc_6r-4mZSM-7o&e=>