W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2019

RE: Minutes 9 April 2019

From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:42:25 -0700
To: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <OF6C637AF2.23512277-ON882583DE.005FEC12-882583DE.006140CD@notes.na.collabserv.com>
Bruce, I reviewed for A and AA, and had a few requests/questions.

Can you please add a comment to the document explaining why On Input is 
listed "no" for Invisible while On Focus is "yes".

Given 4.1.2 exists for custom components as per the SC's note, I do not 
think it is reasonable to use the rationale that standard HTML components 
already meet this SC to mark it "easy". It is theoretically easy to add 
aria, but can involve effort. So I'm not sure whether or not it should be 
marked easy, but I'm not comfortable with the reason given.

Can you please add a note explaining why Contrast (minimum) is marked as 
not essential while Non-text Contrast is marked essential? I suspect it is 
to do with a user's ability to transform text through an AT, but it would 
be good to note that.

I would say that Status Messages needs some adjusting. It would say it is 
easy and also invisible. The text already exists in the UI; the SC merely 
requires it be programmatically flagged to AT, so it does not alter the UI 
at all (and therefore invisible). The fix is easy to implement - just add 
a role or aria-live attritube. 

Thanks for the work!
Michael Gower
Senior Consultant in Accessibility
IBM Design


1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com
cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:   Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
To:     Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, WCAG 
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:   2019-04-16 07:51 AM
Subject:        RE: Minutes 9 April 2019



Thanks Jonathan, that is a good catch!
I have made that change and adjusted the corresponding tally count.
FWIW, I did not include 2.1 SC in the tally count because I found that I 
was much less confident about my ratings for those SC.
-- 
Top posted for my convenience.
 
From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> 
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 10:58 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Minutes 9 April 2019
 
Thanks for putting this together Bruce.  I’d say SC 1.4.1 is not invisible 
because it isn’t just about providing behind the scenes alternatives for 
use of color – but visible alternatives to color for folks with color 
perception conditions who can see. 
 
Jonathan
 
From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov> 
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 3:16 PM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Minutes 9 April 2019
 
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not 
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know 
the content is safe.
 
On the call, I volunteered to update the tally of SC as being Essential, 
Easy, and/or Invisible.
 
I have completed a first pass on that which you can find in the wiki here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.x_Priority_levels_discussion

 
Feedback is much appreciated.  I think I addressed the questions and 
concerns raised by JF and Glenda on the survey.



Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2019 17:42:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:30 UTC