W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2022

Re: Possible draft of 3.2.7

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:08:40 +0000
To: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
CC: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PR3PR09MB53473C87C5DC4F4A201889ECB9FA9@PR3PR09MB5347.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Sarah,

> I had suggested in previous emails redoing the survey, as the original survey question and response options were not clear. Could the chairs facilitate that?

I think the discussion based on the survey was quite clear – we all had different ideas about what would count as a visual indicator.

> In answer to Alastair's questions below, I would respond, “Yes” to all!

I would characterise that as an approach of allowing for context to set expectations of whether things have controls appearing on-hover. In which case:

  1.  The is different from input we’ve had from other people in COGA, where other people were taking a stricter view.
  2.  I don’t see value in the SC if that is the case, it wouldn’t catch very much.

> We need to trust designers and developers judgment and give them agency in meeting SCs in a way that’s appropriate for the context and current conventions.

We also need a way to evaluate pass/fail, otherwise it is advice rather a testable guideline. That isn’t a negative thing, it is covered well in:

It would also fit nicely into the (currently termed) ‘convention tests’ in WCAG3:

Kind regards,

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2022 09:08:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 27 April 2022 09:09:00 UTC