RE: Visual indicators

Hi Andrew,

Assuming that we agree on the ‘progress process’ scope, I think those are all ‘initiate’ process links, or are browse links, therefore not in scope.

That is partly my concern, it is quite a narrow scope. In the examples doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1I5WTualRt90rwNYFJeuOy_b5un4iMS0tTh1uWXosLaA/edit


I was struggling to find failing examples (but I didn’t spend long).

-Alastair


From: Andrew Kirkpatrick

Just a few examples to inquire about:


  1.  Buttons like on target.com (in the US anyway) – the cart button is distinct because it is at the top of the page, has a cart image, has spacing to set it apart – does it satisfy this SC?
[A drawing of a face  Description automatically generated]


  1.  Similarly, very common social media links – pass or fail?
[A close up of a logo  Description automatically generated]

  1.  On the W3C site there are text links that I think will fail, with the possible exception of the “subscribe” link. Agree? Or do they all pass because it is clear enough that they are in a navigation area (made more clear in this example by the heading “quick links”)?

[A screenshot of a cell phone  Description automatically generated]

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Head of Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca<mailto:david100@sympatico.ca>>
Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 8:52 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: Patrick Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Visual indicators
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 8:51 AM

As per Alastair's suggestion I've removed the exceptions and as per Rachel's suggestion I've removed the financial/legal scoping.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit?usp=sharing



Cheers,
David MacDonald



CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613-806-9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd<http://twitter.com/davidmacd>

GitHub<https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com<http://www.can-adapt.com/>



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:25 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
        > 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?

Because of this:
        > If squinting hard enough, almost anything you look at on a website/app can be argued to be a "process"?

Ideally, yes, we would want to include initiation controls as well, but it makes the scoping much harder.

I think we could agree that 'browsing' is not a process, but other than that it is a bit muddy until you are in a step-by-step process scenario. Therefore, if we don't include the 'initiate' of a process it is much clearer what is in scope.

If you find any tricky examples, please do pop them into the examples doc.

Cheers,

-Alastair