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

Re: Possible draft of 3.2.7 - TAKE 2

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 15:49:56 +0000
To: Sarah Horton <sarah.horton@gmail.com>
CC: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <PR3PR09MB5347842B9492A64335E66752B9C29@PR3PR09MB5347.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Sarah,

I think that’s a good idea. It would be worth taking a step back from that SC as it was narrowed down quite a lot in the process.

Starting with a few high-priority examples from the COGA-usable doc and working out how those would fit into a WCAG 3 model makes sense to me.

I think Rachael has started that, so I suggest pinging her to set something up.



From: Sarah Horton
Hi, all.

I’m adding COGA TF back into this thread, as they were left off along the way.

There’s been helpful input and suggestions from a number of people, trying to address different user needs affected by the use of hover/focus to show and provide access to content and functionality.

I’m disappointed to see the SC removed from WCAG 2.2. My interpretation is that we diverged at some point and ended up focusing on different intents and trying to solve for different user needs in one SC. I regret my role in not being able to move it forward together and get something useful into WCAG 2.2.

Could we put together a new group to take a stab at this again, starting from the beginning and with new perspectives, so that we’re ready with something for the next version of WCAG? Maybe this could be taken up by a Silver TF subgroup, or used as the basis for one of those mapping exercises.


On Apr 29, 2022, at 4:54 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com<mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>> wrote:


I love that you are taking a shot at this.

Second Fail for Understanding seems like it would rule out skipnav that becomes visible on tab...

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 12:26 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
That’s a good point, what would you consider a platform standard / convention for the web platform?

Also, I think there are two different things we are conflating:

  1.  What is a standard way of showing that something is a control.
  2.  What is a standard way of showing that controls will appear on hover/focus.
In the proposal the start of the SC is for 1, but the exceptions are for 2.

The scenario we were trying to tackle was: When controls are hidden, how do you know they are available?

I think the 1st line would need to be something like:
When user interface components are not displayed until hover or focus, there is a platform standard indicator that the components are available, or one of the following is true:

However, examples like an underline on links do not convey that something is available on hover.

In fact, is there such a convention? The little down-arrows on a menu would be, but there are a lot of other interfaces for which I don’t think there is a convention.

I’d love to have a suggestion for that aspect, but I’m really struggling with this :-/

Kind regards,


From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>>
Date: Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 17:06
To: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Possible draft of 3.2.7 - TAKE 2
The challenge is in the standard for the platform – is this a platform like Windows, Mac, or a browser like Chrome, or Firefox or something else like the site, bootstrap, react, or material design? We started with some of this several years ago including the borders around button and we had pushback that practices like that are not standards today.   That is why one of the options we have been discussing is based on consistency for the site – is the use of signifiers consistent within a set of pages.  This group and a large platform vendor indicated that we could not mandate signifiers on buttons and that the text alone is sufficient.  Personally, I don’t think text alone is sufficient in some cases as that assumes you can find and process each piece of text to understand it’s meaning and whether it’s a button or not – but others consider it differently.


From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>>
Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Possible draft of 3.2.7 - TAKE 2

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Thanks for the feedback everyone

I see your points.   "Visible" is easy     This only asks that it be visible - there are no requirements on HOW visible.    (No quality requirement)  So anything would pass if visible.

But asking for a visual indicator  raises the question of what constitutes and 'indicator'

I changed it and added a definition where we can put an example.

Here is TAKE 2
 - have a whack at it.
(Criticism alone is great !   Criticism with suggestions is even greater)

Thanks for the comments.


Success Criterion 3.2.7 Controls Visible as Controls (Level AA):
When user interface components are not displayed using standard control presentation formats for the platform until hover or focus, one of the following is true
•       The same functionality is available through a component on the same page, or on a different step in a multi-step process, without requiring pointer hover or keyboard focus to make it visible as a control;
•       A mechanism is available to make the components persistently visible as a control;
•       A mechanism makes controls visible as controls whenever a pointer is moved within or over the page, page is clicked anywhere, or keyboard is used – and stays visible for at least 3 seconds after movement or keyboard operation stops
•      Instructions on the page make it clear that the item(s) are controls and how to activate them
•       Hiding the visibility of the control as a control is essential to the purpose of the page.


Examples of problems that fail

•      Controls are hidden unless the person points directly to the control

•      Page where links are not visible until the person tabs to them

Examples that pass

•      Movie where all controls are hidden but show up as soon as mouse is moved, person touches the screen anywhere, or the keyboard is used.

•      Page where links are hidden but show up as soon as mouse or keyboard are used within or over the page.

•      Hidden controls on a listing of emails that appear on hover or focus - but also appear at the top of the email if you open the email.


 standard control presentation formats for the platform

Formats that are standard for that platform or generally.

- an underline placed below links
- a rounded box appearing around something that functions as a button
- radio buttons for radio buttons
- drop down boxes

NOTE: controls that might not be recognizable by everyone as a control - but are a standard control shape in the industry or for the company (e.g. a lone plus sign) are not required to provide any additional indication - but one can be provided as a courtesy to new users of a platform or technology.

  Examples of things that are NOT standard control presentation formats
- a picture of something where clicking on parts of the picture get you different results  (though this would pass if this was explained on the page)
- links that are not visually different from the text around them.

On Apr 26, 2022, at 10:34 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com<mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>> wrote:

“not visually indicated as controls”
What does that mean? You’ve added in another point of subjective interpretation.

“until hover or focus, provide a visible indicator”
What constitutes “visible indicator”? This is the existing unresolved issue

I’ll leave Alastair to run you through the myriad examples we have of how difficult it is to reach agreement on these concepts.


From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>
Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 9:41 AM
To: w3c-waI-gl@w3. org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Possible draft of 3.2.7
This is a rough first draft of an alternative for Success Criterion 3.2.7 Please anyone send me comments on how to improve this — or problems I missed. Thanks Gregg ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž ž
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
This is a rough first draft of an alternative for Success Criterion 3.2.7

Please anyone send me comments on how to improve this — or problems I missed.




Gregg Vanderheiden


Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fraisingthefloor.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C64b1e90ac9774889a76208da2de160dd%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C637872743278671235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=QzMBQTiANpjlWhF2uq60NsGfD%2FzHhwRthVj95dBazUI%3D&reserved=0>
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgpii.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C64b1e90ac9774889a76208da2de160dd%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C637872743278671235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=V4fOjHtD9vbFFdpEB%2FUoRwY4gCSLDBDLDqqLd1VpTS4%3D&reserved=0>
The Morphic project  https://morphic.org<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmorphic.org%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7C64b1e90ac9774889a76208da2de160dd%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C637872743278671235%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=6Kxnk0YAbnS9rOqm4ugyPTnCKv35o2ukAWxzCkEvRj0%3D&reserved=0>
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2022 15:50:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 5 May 2022 15:50:17 UTC