Re: Recent changes to the WCAG 2.2 SC 2.1.1 Understanding page

I actually find it very weird, the concept of undiscoverable keyboard
interactions - why would this ever exist? Is iit sort of like Easter Eggs,
the devs put n for them and nobody else?
I would expect that if someone puts in a keyboard interaction they want it
to be discoverable and usable, and if it isn't that is actually a bug in
their program that they would like you to point out whether or not it is an
accessibility issue.


On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 2:23 PM Steve Green <steve.green@testpartners.co.uk>
wrote:

> Thanks to everyone for all the responses. They raise a couple of
> questions, though:
>
>
>
>    1. If data entry requires the use of an undiscoverable keyboard
>    interaction (and we do encounter them), can we report a non-conformance of
>    SC 3.3.2 (Labels or Instructions)? The normative text and Understanding
>    page don't mention this at all - they focus entirely on the labelling of
>    controls and data validation rules.
>
>
>
>    2. If undiscoverable keyboard interactions relate to functionality
>    other than data entry, it appears that they don't violate any success
>    criterion. Surely that can't be right.
>
>
>
> After spending an hour trawling through GitHub, I have some understanding
> of it. It's pretty daunting for someone who doesn't use GitHub in their
> work. It's safe to say I would never have found that Commit page if I
> didn't know it existed. And the distinction between Issues and Discussions
> is far from clear.
>
>
>
> I have subscribed to notifications and will participate as best I can.
> Sadly, membership is unaffordable for me.
>
>
>
> I had a look at keyboard.html commits
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/commits/main/understanding/20/keyboard.html>,
> but it’s full of all kinds of stuff. What I really want is a changelog for
> each Understanding page (and perhaps other pages such as techniques). I
> have no idea how easy that would be, but I will raise an issue anyway.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
> Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 10:37 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Recent changes to the WCAG 2.2 SC 2.1.1 Understanding page
>
>
>
> Thanks Bryan, these are all useful and good observations.
>
>
>
> To the original point, these are all things that are not normatively
> required by the SC, and never have been. Many auditors have added these in
> the own interpretation or what 2.1.1 should say, and that these factors are
> all involved in deciding whether or not content passes or fails 2.1.1, even
> though this was not in the spec per se. Hence the recent additions to the
> understanding in 2.2 tried to clarify this, as it historically led to
> inconsistent audit results.
>
>
>
> P
>
> --
>
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
>
>
> * https://www.splintered.co.uk/
>
> * https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>
> * https://flickr.com/photos/redux/
>
> * https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke
>
>
>
>
>