Re: Add Findable Help

Hey Alastair,

> Within the conformance scope for that set of web pages / SPA.


If that's the case, then the SC should say this. Because that isn't what it
says, I think it's very reasonable to assume that's not the intent.

> It is a content change, but it is not ‘all content changes’.


Can you clarify that for me? The way I see it, if I have to list all the
content changes, and the only content change that occurs is a single small
content change, then all content changes is a list containing one small
content change.

I don't think this definition is workable. The suggestion I made before was
to base "SPA" on navigation mechanisms that change the purpose of the web
page. I think that's a fairly reliable way to define an SPA. It's based on
some existing language in WCAG, so that would help.


> I don’t we should try and define ‘consistent’, it already has a well
understood meaning and I’m struggling to think of examples where it could
be misconstrued.

>

> The only alternative I can think of is “relative location”.


I doubt your understanding of "consistent' is the same as mine. I think
30px from the top and 40px from the right irrespective of screen size is a
consistent location, and if at any point during content changes, resizing
the screen or whatever that position changes or that element is made
invisible or obscured in some way, it is not in a consistent location. That
doesn't seem like the intended meaning, going by what's written in the
understanding document. I'd bet people would be more lenient then the
strict definition of it that I just gave. But different people are going to
be more or less lenient on where they draw the line of what is and isn't a
"consistent location". That's the issue. There are questions for which no
answer exists in the normative document.


My suggestion would be to just take this out. Let 3.2.3 Consistent
navigation handle where the thing can be placed in the UI.



> The other question is: Are these things that need working out before it
goes for wide review? (I.e. can you live with it for this purpose.)


I think these issues need to be addressed. I don't think we should publish
SCs with known issues in them, even as draft, so I'm going to stick to my
vote on this.



W






On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:01 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> > But then how far should a tester look before concluding there is no
> contact mechanism?
>
>
>
> Within the conformance scope for that set of web pages / SPA.
>
>
>
> So where a site has sub-domains / blogs / 3rd party forms, if one of the
> listed things is available in that conformance scope *then* it needs to
> be present in a consistent location.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think I understand what you mean. How is a "small content
> change" not a "content change"?
>
>
>
> It is a content change, but it is not ‘all content changes’.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't think we're going to get consistent test results if we leave
> "consistent location" undefined.
>
>
>
> I don’t we should try and define ‘consistent’, it already has a well
> understood meaning and I’m struggling to think of examples where it could
> be misconstrued.
>
>
>
> The only alternative I can think of is “relative location”.
>
>
>
> The other question is: Are these things that need working out before it
> goes for wide review? (I.e. can you live with it for this purpose.)
>
>
>
> We need to get the remaining SCs out for review, then we have time to deal
> with remaining issues.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>


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