RE: Visible controls updates

Hello Alastair,

from the academic and dictionary point of view, that's certainly correct.
Nevertheless I feel that different pictures raise in the reader's mind.
Using the word 'identify' feels more strict and somehow implies the location.
While the more loose new wording immediately triggers a mind image of some icon or string that says 'there are invisible elements on the page' or 'hover an item to see its options' or something the like.

Best regards,
Gundula

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Montag, 15. November 2021 15:39
To: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>; Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Visible controls updates

Hi Gundula, Wilco,

I'm still not understanding the issue.

Just be clear about the versions, this is the current one from the editor's draft:
"Where receiving pointer hover or keyboard focus triggers user interface components to be visible, information needed to identify that user interface components are available is visible, except when:"

This is the proposed update:
"When user interface components are invisible until hover or focus makes them visible, provide a visible indicator that the components are available. Except when:"

In the general English sense of the words, "information needed to identify that user interface components are available is visible" = "provide a visible indicator that the components are available"

Breaking it down:

  *   "that the components are available" is the same in both.
  *   "visible" = "is visible"
  *   "indicator" = "information needed to identify"

Is it that last one which is a problem? The definition of "indicator" is pretty solid for that.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indicates<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.merriam-webster.com%2Fdictionary%2Findicates&data=04%7C01%7Cgundula.niemann%40sap.com%7Cca7ee1c61e154547da5408d9a845a45b%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C637725839326519505%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=N36%2B4%2FVqYnzZDCDRPccgPmCgEPvZZUsDzuhhWnuDoMw%3D&reserved=0> [to show (something); to show that (something) exists or is true; to direct attention to (someone or something) usually by pointing; to show or suggest that (something) is needed]

On the example of having some text on the page which tells you where something is available, I think that would pass both versions above.

-Alastair


From: Niemann, Gundula

+1

"identify that user interface components are available" does not imply to identify which element is available, but it indicates that the location should be clearly indicated.

Best regards,
Gundula

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com<mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com>>
Sent: Freitag, 12. November 2021 18:55
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Visible controls updates

Hey Alastair,
The current wording no longer has a connection between the visual indicator and the component. I think in the new wording, putting a text on the page that says "this submit button is available on hover" meets the requirement, even though it provides no information on where to find that hidden component.

I don't think the word "identify" does an amazing job of capturing that case, but I think there's at least an argument to be made that if there's no information on where to find that component, it isn't "identifying" it.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 6:25 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi Wilco & group,

In the last meeting we discussed the re-write of Visible controls:
https://www.w3.org/2021/11/09-ag-minutes.html#item05<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2021%2F11%2F09-ag-minutes.html%23item05&data=04%7C01%7Cgundula.niemann%40sap.com%7Cca7ee1c61e154547da5408d9a845a45b%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C637725839326529460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=lr2yY%2BN6kg6xkBCEhq5o%2BpFO2JzKPpXkelmHWAlUqeM%3D&reserved=0>

In the Friday meeting today we've updated that, visible in the PR:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2019/files<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F2019%2Ffiles&data=04%7C01%7Cgundula.niemann%40sap.com%7Cca7ee1c61e154547da5408d9a845a45b%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C637725839326539416%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jn5Fgf%2BSsjz4rDD0QjcumSM0YseraTlrcOM51Vv8iug%3D&reserved=0>

Wilco made some suggestions during the meeting for the first part of the SC text, to say something like "provide visible indicators that identify the available components", but in our discussion we thought:


  *   Adding the word "identify" doesn't seem to add anything that "visible indicator" is not already saying.
  *   Adding the verb identify has larger ramifications, e.g. "provide visible indicators that identify the available components", would mean each available component has to be identifiable from the indicator, which is more than the intent. It doesn't allow for grouping.

We'd appreciate a little more info on what the core concern is.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cgundula.niemann%40sap.com%7Cca7ee1c61e154547da5408d9a845a45b%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C637725839326539416%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=92pkhiv7sK0P24wsoUs5KLj3Z6xpFFas3FOVEJMJO44%3D&reserved=0>



--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator ACT Task Force
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]