Re: Visual indicators

> AWK: That’s good, but we need to update the text of the SC

I would think that the icon is an image that indicates that it is
actionable which is not position or font styling... we could make that
clear in the understanding... otherwise we could throw an exception on the
end

For each control that is necessary to progress through a process
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-processes>, spacing and/or font styling
are not the only visual means used to convey that the control is
actionable, except for actionable icons.

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 3:34 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> To address Andrew's comments.
>
> Any icon based control would pass this because it is not relying on font.
> It is an icon.
>
>
>
> AWK: That’s good, but we need to update the text of the SC then because it
> says:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> A button with only an image on it can be a control to progress a process,
> and might be only set apart from other content by spacing. The SC doesn’t
> say that it is only text controls.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>