Fixes for Understanding 1.3.3 Sensory Characteristics

[patrickhlauke]

• expand/refocus the intent and benefits to be more explicitly about instructions (removing the vague implication that controls/content themselves shouldn't use shape/colour/etc alone)
• swap out first example, which was a failure of 1.1.1 not 1.3.3, with @awkawk's suggested example

Closes #750

[edit: since F26 was modified - see https://github.com//pull/767#issuecomment-516050840 - leaving these last two points out]

• remove reference to failure technique F26, which is at best a 1.1.1 failure and not a 1.3.3 failure
• remove F26 from techniques altogether

Closes #258

Note to self: this seems to be the last active/open PR still on my old WCAG fork - once this is merged or thrown out, the fork can be removed...

[patrickhlauke]

Nuking the F26 file itself may need further amendments in other files - I see it referenced in toc.html and other places, but wasn't sure if these need to be manually edited, or if they're automagically updated with some content generation scripts at build time... @michael-n-cooper should be able to clarify though (and if references need to be deleted, happy to add further commits to this PR to do it)

[alastc]

I think removing from the understanding doc(s) is the key thing, the rest is generated. (At least that's all I've had to do previously.)

[awkawk]

@patrickhlauke I can't edit your PR without making a PR on it so it may just be easier for you to remove lines 169-174 in your version of understanding/20/sensory-characteristics.html

[alastc]

@patrickhlauke is there a reason you can't work from the WCAG repo directly? It's easier to create a branch here rather than one from a fork, more collaborative... if you don't have permissions we can sort that.

[patrickhlauke]

@patrickhlauke I can't edit your PR without making a PR on it so it may just be easier for you to remove lines 169-174 in your version of understanding/20/sensory-characteristics.html

my PR already removes those lines?

[awkawk]

@patrickhlauke I'm saying that you should remove those lines to remove F26 from the understanding document.

[patrickhlauke]

@patrickhlauke is there a reason you can't work from the WCAG repo directly? It's easier to create a branch here rather than one from a fork, more collaborative... if you don't have permissions we can sort that.

force of habit from before i had the necessary permissions... and i forgot to enable this in github https://help.github.com/en/articles/allowing-changes-to-a-pull-request-branch-created-from-a-fork

once my PRs are all sorted (seem to have a few old stragglers there too, can you have a look and close if needed) https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pulls/patrickhlauke i can move to working directly on the w3c repo

[patrickhlauke]

@patrickhlauke I'm saying that you should remove those lines to remove F26 from the understanding document.

and i'm saying that i already did that as part of my original PR? (see https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/767/files)

[awkawk]

@patrickhlauke oh. What PR is that?

[patrickhlauke]

@patrickhlauke oh. What PR is that?

this one that you're commenting on?

[awkawk]

OK, I'm clearly looking at something else! You did do that, so I'll just shut up now... :)

[alastc]

Having changed F26 (changes) to make it applicable under 1.3.3, is that ok to keep?

[awkawk]

Discussed on July 30, 2019 call, no decision and left open

[patrickhlauke]

@alastc fixed this PR / refocused it, since F26 is now changed. this now solely focuses on the language in the intent and the examples, to make sure it clearly talks about instructions and not "the things themselves using shape/color/etc"

[patrickhlauke]

gentle ping on this ... i'd have thought it's quite non-controversial to clarify that the examples refer to instructions rather than the things themselves using color/shape/etc, as per the normative wording of the SC

[patrickhlauke]

another ping @alastc (while i'm going through my PR left hanging open for ages)

[patrickhlauke]

Ping @alastc

[patrickhlauke]

noting that this topic has bubbled up again in #1532 ... it seems the idea here is non-controversial? or was there some fence-sitting at the time this was put to survey? if not, would be nice to see this merged...

[alastc]

Approved today: https://www.w3.org/2020/12/15-ag-minutes.html#item05