Re: Possible draft of 3.2.7

The question I have is why is this requirement not being considered
under Principle 1: Perceivable
The description on the "Understanding" page suggests all the groups
listed there are unable to perceive the controls.
This is not different from a piece of text  that is really a link but
has no underline or other visual distinctive trait to convey  that the
element is an operable element.
Depending on the context and functionality, if the controls get
exposed in a logical order, or by the presence of a visual cue (and
role/state etc.) the user is informed that user action is needed to
access child / related controls,  the content will be accessible.
That is what is covered by "Making Content Usable for People with
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities"
Is this not already covered by WCAG 2.0 SCs?
The Understanding doc for proposed SC 3.2.7 states: "Some design
approaches hide controls and require certain user interactions, such
as mouseover, to reveal them (both visually and programmatically)".
My take: Unless the design  includes a visual cue , even an individual
without any disability whatsoever will not be able to figure out that
the element needs to be operated upon via mouseover or such to reveal
related / child controls.
This is bad design impacting everyone and surely an accessibility barrier.
Thanks and respectfully,

On 4/27/22, Alastair Campbell <> wrote:
> 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,
> -Alastair

Sailesh Panchang
Customer Success Strategist and Principal Accessibility Consultant
Deque Systems Inc
381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon,
VA 20170
Mobile: 571-344-1765

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2022 13:09:53 UTC