Re: Add Findable Help

Hey Alastair,
Thanks for the replies. Let me respond to them one at a time:

> It doesn’t require a contact option. *If* you provide a contact option,
it needs to be provided in a consistent location.


I guess I just don't understand what is meant with "available". Does it
have to be part of the SPA or the set of web pages? I guess not since
that's not what it says. But then how far should a tester look before
concluding there is no contact mechanism? I think this leaves a lot of grey
areas. Here are a few examples

- A website with a third party forms app, does the forms app need to link
to the main website's contact page?
- An org has a main site, and is running an ad website, does the ad site
need to link to the main website's contact page?
- An org has two blogs, one with contact details, one without, does the one
without need to link to the contact page of the other site?
- I have a hosted blog without contact info, but my blog provider does, do
I need to link to the blog provider's contact page?

> A small content change isn’t “all subsequent page and content changes”?!


I don't think I understand what you mean. How is a "small content change"
not a "content change"?

> We already have an SC called “consistent navigation”, and having raised
it in at least one call, no one else thought it caused an issue. The
understanding document explains:

The understanding document is informative. It can not contain definitions.
"Consistent navigation" has a much clearer requirement: "same relative
order". It also gets around the issue of "what if it isn't visible by
default". I don't think we're going to get consistent test results if we
leave "consistent location" undefined.

W


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:25 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco,
>
>
>
> NB: Different subject line to take this off the CFC thread.
>
>
>
> > I still have a number of concerns with this SC, ones that I've put into
> survey before.
>
>
>
> I remember, and we discussed those and it was updated.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't believe this SC should be as broadly applicable as it is now
> made. An anonymous blog someone writes in their spare time does not benefit
> from a contact option. It may even defeat the purpose of the site all
> together.
>
>
>
> It doesn’t require a contact option. *If* you provide a contact option,
> it needs to be provided in a consistent location.
>
>
>
>
>
> > The definition of "single page app" is far too generic. Given this
> definition, every page where even small content changes occur should now be
> treated as SPAs.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure how you can read that into:
>
> “After the first page load, all subsequent page and content changes are
> handled internally by the application."
>
>
>
> A small content change isn’t “all subsequent page and content changes”?!
>
>
>
>
>
> > "consistent location" is too generic. What does that mean?
>
>
>
> We already have an SC called “consistent navigation”, and having raised it
> in at least one call, no one else thought it caused an issue. The
> understanding document explains:
>
> “Locating the help mechanism in a consistent location across pages makes
> it easier for users to find it. For example, when a mechanism or link is
> located in the header of a web page, it will be presented in the header of
> all pages within the set of webpages.
>
> The location in a smaller viewport may be different than in a larger
> viewport but the mechanism or link will remain in the same location
> throughout the size. The location should remain consistent both visually
> and programmatically.”
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe for Web product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R