RE: Here's where we are at 3pm Wednesday

For Target Size and Identify Common Controls it strikes me most that I have a feeling we didn’t explore and elaborated the SCs more thoroughly (and I did expected that more as a WCAG rookie) and now it indeed feels like we’re in a 'forced march' as Michael Gower calls it. Rushing into delivering weakens more than it strengthens WCAG in total, we should be aware of that.

Target Size:
My verdict for Target Size is that I don’t see it happen for AA and the wording right now doesn’t have a solid base at all but 44x44 for AAA is a perfect solution for now. Funny thing is that I fight on a daily basis for the 44x44 and larger touch targets than ever before at my work, but mandating the suggested sizes, the user research behind it and their effects it will cause are just not well thought through at the moment. As a best practice… fine!

The result is that the basis for the response to 631 is that we don’t have good reasons for the 22 and we should not use it.

Identify Common Controls
I could live with the text as proposed but Michael Gower as well as Jason have very strong points to not support this SC at this moment. Although we all see, want and feel that this is a very potential worthy SC I also feel like it is basically just too early to blindly release, a shame but true.

Michael  Gower:
“First, this is not just an autofill issue. Autofill does not have to be turned on for there to be benefit via an AT from using the purpose attribute value. So, it is the use of the 'misusse' of the attribute value (from an a11y perspective) that I'm talking about.

Second, yes, where autofill was turned on, everyone would face a situation where they would now have to distinguish between what the autofill is suggesting, and what the field is actually asking for. Furthermore, once someone correctly puts in a different value (say their spouse's name) from now on, they would have two stored values for name via autofill.

I think it's pretty easy to see that both those scenarios more significantly impact COGA users as a group, and even more so for those who rely on a symbol substition or reinforcement.

I'm not saying that is reason to reject this, but it does show how the nuances of this are hard for us to foresee in our 'forced march'.

Without entering into a full discussion, I don’t think WCAG is the right vehicle for addressing the “chicken and egg” situation, nor that the current proposal is likely to do so effectively. Alex pointed out at a recent meeting that there are many ways of solving this problem, and I take the view that WCAG, though an important mechanism, isn’t the right one to be used, given the current early development of the solutions on offer. I agree that efficacious solutions ready for wide deployment should be included in WCAG, as ARIA was in 2008, and I hope cognition-supporting assistive technologies, with their associated standards, will become (and there are other ways of advancing this effort).

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick []
Sent: woensdag 17 januari 2018 21:28
To: WCAG <>
Subject: Here's where we are at 3pm Wednesday


These need the most attention:
Identify Common Controls – have responses for all issues ready for a CFC and people are going back and forth about small changes to the last proposal.
Identify Controls – Have responses for 2 of 4 issues (missing 342 and 684). None yet approved in CFC.
Text Spacing – CFC open but people are still debating language changes. CFC currently has unanimous acceptance.
Animation from Interactions – awaiting final definition for animation.
Character Key Shortcuts – CFC open. Currently has two open “-1” responses that may doom this SC due to low responses.
Pointer Gestures – have responses for 663/634/715 but need the final resolution for CFC.
Target Size – pending resolution of current discussion and issue 631 response.

These are more in control:
Graphics Contrast – responses for all issues ready for a CFC.
Content on Hover or Focus – have responses for all issues ready for a CFC.
Timeouts – all resolved
Label in Name – all resolved.
Pointer Cancellation - responses for all issues ready for a CFC.
Target Size (enhanced) – pending AA target size
Concurrent Input Mechanisms – all resolved.
Guideline 6.2 text – all resolved.
Motion Actuation – all resolved.
Orientation – all resolved.
Status Messages – all resolved.
Full pages (conformance) - responses for all issues ready for a CFC.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility

The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.

Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 21:06:45 UTC