Guidelines update #129
Open
Guidelines update #129
+1,192
−1,401
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag3 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag3-howtos canceled.
|
@alastc @rachaelbradley I am not sure why this was introduced. My personal design view is that it adds clutter but I am not sure if it is in response to a specific need?
This reverts commit e959182.
The requirements are linked to, although this could probably be cleaned up.
Bit of a tidy up and added in links to each outcome group
| we don’t expect it to change. There are 5 levels: | ||
| <ul> | ||
| <li>Placeholder - we are thinking about the topic and plan to work on it in the next few months. </li> | ||
| <li>Exploratory - we have started work on this topic but still have many questions.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for consistency:
Suggested change
| <li>Exploratory - we have started work on this topic but still have many questions.</li> | |
| <li>Exploratory - we have started work on this topic, but still have many questions.</li> |
|
|
||
| <p>Ordinarily, exploratory content includes editor's notes listing concerns and questions for each item. Because this Guidelines section is very early in the process of working on WCAG 3.0, this editor's note covers the content of the entire section. Please consider all items in the list as exploratory at this point. It is a list of all possible topics for consideration. Not all items listed will become requirements.</p> | ||
| <p><strong> The following list is an initial set of potential guidelines and requirements that the working group will be exploring. The goal is to guide the next phase of work. They should be considered drafts and should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3</strong>.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| <p><strong> The following list is an initial set of potential guidelines and requirements that the working group will be exploring. The goal is to guide the next phase of work. They should be considered drafts and should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3</strong>.</p> | |
| <p><strong> The following list is an initial set of potential guidelines and requirements that the Working Group will be exploring. The goal is to guide the next phase of work. They should be considered drafts and should not be considered as final content of WCAG 3</strong>.</p> |
| </section> | ||
| <section class="provision" data-status="exploratory"> | ||
| <h5>No cognitive tests</h5> | ||
| <p class="provision-text">Processes, including login/authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel this would be more clear if explicitly 'and':
Suggested change
| <p class="provision-text">Processes, including login/authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).</p> | |
| <p class="provision-text">Processes, including login and authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).</p> |
or if we used just authentication:
Suggested change
| <p class="provision-text">Processes, including login/authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).</p> | |
| <p class="provision-text">Processes, including authentication, can be completed without puzzles, calculations, or other cognitive tests (essential exceptions would apply).</p> |
| </section> | ||
| <section class="provision" data-status="developing"> | ||
| <h5>Custom indicator</h5> | ||
| <p class="provision-text">A custom focus indicator is used with sufficient size, change of contrast, adjacent contrast, distinct style and adjacecy. </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Typo?
Suggested change
| <p class="provision-text">A custom focus indicator is used with sufficient size, change of contrast, adjacent contrast, distinct style and adjacecy. </p> | |
| <p class="provision-text">A custom focus indicator is used with sufficient size, change of contrast, adjacent contrast, distinct style and adjacency. </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am also confused by what it means for a focus indicator to have sufficient adjacency, is this clear enough?
| </section> | ||
| <section class="provision" data-status="exploratory"> | ||
| <h5>Restore focus</h5> | ||
| <p class="provision-text">When the focus is moved by the content into a temporary change of view (e.g. a modal), the focus is restored to its previous location when the view is restored.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be easier to know where to move the focus if we reuse 'change of view' from the 'when'?
Suggested change
| <p class="provision-text">When the focus is moved by the content into a temporary change of view (e.g. a modal), the focus is restored to its previous location when the view is restored.</p> | |
| <p class="provision-text">When the focus is moved by the content into a temporary change of view (e.g. a modal), the focus is restored to where it was before the change of view.</p> |
| </section> | ||
| <section class="provision" data-status="exploratory"> | ||
| <h5>Label in name</h5> | ||
| <p class="provision-text">The programmatic name includes the visual label.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel something like this could make it clearer what to include:
Suggested change
| <p class="provision-text">The programmatic name includes the visual label.</p> | |
| <p class="provision-text">The programmatic name includes all of the text that is visibly part of the label.</p> |
| <p class="guideline-text">Users are not disadvantaged by algorithms.</p> | ||
| <section class="provision" data-status="exploratory"> | ||
| <h5>Algorithm bias</h5> | ||
| <p class="provision-text">Algorithms (including AI) used are not biased against people with disabilities.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel it's too unclear what we mean by “AI” here, it seems to refer to LLMs but they are not really algorithms?
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Preview