Re: Visual indicators

I would be open to including controls to initiate a process as per Patrick
but we'd need to manage it in the Understanding to ensure that regular
browsing activity is not considered a process. It certainly wasn't what we
were thinking when we wrote the definition, so articulating that in the
understanding is not changing anything.

My main concern right now is to get a version of this in a draft and then
we can adjust scope in another draft depending on public reaction.

For the first draft of it I think I'd include controls to initiate.

To address Andrew's comments.
Any icon based control would pass this because it is not relying on font.
It is an icon.

We can manage "icon fonts" in the understanding that they are not
considered text for the purposes of this SC, but rather an alternative way
to deliver an image,



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613-806-9005

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

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 10:54 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> 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?
>
> [image: A drawing of a face Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
>    1. Similarly, very common social media links – pass or fail?
>
> [image: 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”)?
>
>
>
> [image: A screenshot of a cell phone Description automatically generated]
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> *Date: *Wednesday, April 29, 2020 at 8:52 AM
> *To: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc: *Patrick Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Visual indicators
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <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
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613-806-9005
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> 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>
> 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
>
>