Re: Visible controls - Design canvas exception

Hi, Alastair. 

Other SCs require judgement, like SC 1.4.1 Use of Color. First you have to identify instances where you use color to convey information, indicate an action, prompt a response, or distinguish a visual element, and then you have to convey, indicate, prompt, or distinguish that element using another visual means, which may be contextual, like a list of links, or it might be visual, like an underline or outline, or it may be text, like a label or instruction. What serves as an effective visual means changes. Conventions come and go. People understand things differently. But still, the SC guides designers to pay attention to how they use color and avoid making choices that result in people not having access to information. 

Similarly, with 3.2.7 Visible Controls, whenever you provide interactive element you have to provide visible information about its interactivity, through context, a visual indicator, text, etc.

I agree that any SC that ends up requiring a catalogue of examples is problematic. 2.4.11 Focus Appearance (Minimum) currently has 19 figures. When that happens it seems like an indicator that we probably need to go back to the drawing board, revisit the intent of the SC, and try out another approach.

And I agree that it’s complicated, but I’m not ready to say, “I don’t see how it would work.” I believe our job is to keep exploring ways to make it work!

Best,
Sarah


> On Apr 6, 2022, at 12:46 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
>  
> > Making actionable elements recognizable to users is the essence of user interface design.
>  
> Ok, but how do we define that in a consistent way? The only way I can think of would be with a catalogue of examples.
>  
>  
> > We can provide guidance that will help make actionable elements recognizable to all users.
>  
> Guidance I agree with, and there is some in coga-usable <https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/#clearly-identify-controls-and-their-use-pattern>, but that isn’t the same as a testable SC in WCAG 2.x.
>  
> Sidenote: I am also sceptical that we could provide guidance that would work for all users for all scenarios because of the reliance on conventions & expectations.
> I.e. If the vast majority of users understand what is actionable by context (e.g. media controls, or objects in a design canvas) there would be a lot of resistance to adding something that would (for most people) get in the way.
>  
>  
> > The task was not clearly defined as to what we were looking for in the examples
>  
> I think one or two people defaulted to “does it pass the whole SC”, but just from the conversation in the call we could hear that people had different assumptions about what would be a visible indicator.
>  
> In the current SC a visible indicator is our benchmark of whether something is recognizable as actionable. The visible indicator could be the element itself, or a separate thing.
>  
> The github/teams avatars is a useful example as they split opinions down the middle. To me there is nothing inherent in the design of the avatars that indicates you get more controls on-hover (or the bold text next to them). I only know they are actionable because it keeps popping-up (annoyingly) as I mouse around. It has changed my expectations.
> However, that creates a site-convention, not a universal one.
>  
> When you get down to it, blue links are a convention. A fairly universal one, but I do remember doing usability testing in the early 2000s when we’d still find people who didn’t understand that.
>  
> Without a list of approved (and internationalised?) conventions, or an alternative approach to testing (in WCAG 3), I don’t see how it would work.
>  
> -Alastair