Re: Focus appearance

I think in general it is easier to understand although it still wins the
prize for the most complex SC in the history of WCAG 1.0 - 2.x

Check this sentence...
For blank inputs the bounding box contains the area that content would go
if it were filled.

Seems a bit weird.
do we mean "...where content would go..."?

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:00 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I’d like to make a bit of progress between meetings on this, based on the
> survey I think we can come to a solid proposal for questions 2-4 on the
> last survey.
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/wcag22-focus-appearance-enhanced2/results
>
>
>
> If you have a comment which I’ve tried to address your name should be
> below. I’d appreciate it if you could scan for that and review the
> rounded-up PR at the bottom.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Q1. User agents*
>
>
>
> Although that discussion is not resolved, it seemed reasonable to at least
> add an exception for when the user-agent does not permit styling of the
> component.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Q2. **Suggested update for understandability*
>
>
>
> This was Andrew’s overhaul for understandability in this PR:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2182
>
>
>
> Most people agreed, except Wilco and I thought the “Adjacent contrast”
> bullet had changed the scope slightly and would be better as it was
> previously (just updating the term for the contrasting area).
>
>
>
>
>
> *Q **3. Update to 'component' language take 2*
>
>
>
> The conversation on this has moved on a lot in this thread, with
> contributions from MichaelG, PatrickL and others (not on this email list):
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2226
>
>
>
> The new proposal is to keep the scope to User Interface Components, but
> set the minimum size as a bounding box around the *content* of the
> control, i.e. the text or icon. See
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2226#issuecomment-1040731857
>
> for that specific update.
>
>
>
> That should help with the survey comments from Gundula, Wilco, MichaelG &
> Bruce. However, the method of taking that size is new and might take a
> little thought to analyse. Also, the new note could do with some refinement.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Q4. Time limited focus indicators*
>
>
>
> The scoping we had done to allow for focused items to be partially
> obscured had opened up a loophole for fading indicators. There is a PR to
> move that aspect to only apply to the ‘obscured’ clause.
>
>
>
> LawranceL: Patrick’s update was added.
>
>
>
> Bruce: We can’t move that into a bullet as the scope is different (the
> focus indicator vs the item in focus). I tried to apply that here:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2223#issuecomment-1041348009
>
> However, IMHO that shifted the focus too much and made the intro very
> long, I haven’t included that in the overall PR (yet, maybe someone can
> think of a better way).
>
>
>
>
>
> *Overall PR*
>
>
>
> I’ve tried to wrap all of the above into one new version:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2230/files
>
>
>
> If rawgit is working (I get an error at the moment) that should appear
> like here:
>
>
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/wcag/focus-appearance-content-term/understanding/22/focus-appearance-minimum.html
>
> NB: It doesn’t show the links to definitions there, but none are new
> definitions. Also, the understanding document will need an overhaul if the
> SC proposal is agreed.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>