- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:08:00 +0000
- To: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <F49C2F71-9E46-456B-90B4-E47BA0472914@nomensa.com>
Hi Everyone, I was adding another question and noticed the current responses Q3 had a few comments along the lines of: We should use “user-interface controls” rather than any of the suggestions. https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results#xq36 This question came about due to our look at target-size as the metric for working out the size of a control. Whilst noting there is no perfect answer to this, the problem with basing it on user-interface controls / components were: * Being “perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function” does not lead you to one size. For example: * A menu is a control for the function of navigation, but actually you want the items to have focus. * Similarly, active descendants like grid cells<https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.2/examples/grid/dataGrids.html> or drop-down options<https://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-practices-1.2/examples/combobox/combobox-select-only.html> would not be in scope. * Ambiguous components like “Cards<https://codepen.io/alastc/full/eYGoKyP>” could easily lead to different results. * What is ‘perceived’ as part of the control would mean things like drop-shadow or other effects that go outside of the HTML element would add to the perceived size. Things you assume would pass (e.g. a contrasting 1px outline) then fail. If we want to scope as closely as possible to “the thing the user thinks has keyboard focus”, we can’t use UIC. -Alastair
Received on Thursday, 10 February 2022 18:08:19 UTC