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

Re: Focus appearance

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 16:37:12 +0000
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
CC: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <169EEBAA-0633-4AF1-BCEE-767704FFA9D2@nomensa.com>
> 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

As SC text I’d agree, although in implementation & testing we have many that take more time to deal with (e.g. 1.3.1, 4.1.2 etc.)

We also need to emphasise the easy solutions, which are also easy to test. Skating close to the minimum does make it harder to work out.

> do we mean "...where content would go..."?

Yes, I am definitely looking for more elegant wording for that note.

So the full note would then be:
“The content of the component can be text or images. For blank inputs the bounding box contains the area where content would go.”

It doesn’t feel quite right as the content could be text (for a text input), or checkboxes, radio buttons etc.

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2022 16:37:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:43 UTC