- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 12:23:01 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 29/04/2020 10:28, Alastair Campbell wrote: > “For each control needed to progress a process, spacing and/or font > styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the > control is actionable.” While I can see the reasoning for scoping this only to "progressing", a cold reading of what the SC currently says may make developers wonder why it's literally just the progress once you're IN a process, but not the actual control that may INITIATE a process? (at least that's my current understanding here...that the control to actually kick off the process is exempt - it's at least not mentioned in the current writeup, and the fallback version still explicitly excludes it) i.e. it's helpful of course if the controls to go through the checkout process are all clear. but what use is that if the actual control to even START the checkout is not clear? This may feel like a nonsensical limitation of scope. Also, still not convinced myself that "process" is sufficiently clear in its definition. If squinting hard enough, almost anything you look at on a website/app can be argued to be a "process"? > I think the argument for the legal commitment aspect was that the design > was quite prescriptive, I.e. you have to use A, B & C. > > Now that it is “don’t use X & Y”, that argument drops away. FWIW I'm definitely more comfortable with this take/angle. P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2020 11:23:15 UTC