Consistent Identification and Styles #28
Comments
|
Looks good. Why combine with an existing SC and confuse things. Why not just make a new SC. Simplifies Understanding WCAG 2.1 and makes it easier to have Sufficient Techniques. (also need examples. This looks good but I have no idea what it means). Consistent Identification Styles: Components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are styled consistently in the primary modality of the content. |
|
Hi Gregg, we were asked to combine SC if possible as to avoid bloat.
It is fine with me if it is a separate SC
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:38:00 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
Looks good. Why combine with an existing SC and confuse things. Why not just make a new SC. Simplifies Understanding WCAG 2.1 and makes it easier to have Sufficient Techniques. (also need examples. This looks good but I have no idea what it means).
Consistent Identification Styles: Components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page. (Level AA)
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Assigned to Mike Pluke (@mapluke) - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1 |
|
I too am of a mind NOT to combine. We need instinct, discrete, testable
requirements.
Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545
…On Dec 15, 2016 4:05 AM, "Lisa Seeman" ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi Gregg, we were asked to combine SC if possible as to avoid bloat.
It is fine with me if it is a separate SC
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
---- On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:38:00 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@
github.com> wrote ----
Looks good. Why combine with an existing SC and confuse things. Why not
just make a new SC. Simplifies Understanding WCAG 2.1 and makes it easier
to have Sufficient Techniques. (also need examples. This looks good but I
have no idea what it means).
Consistent Identification Styles: Components that have the same type of
information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are
styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main
function of the Web page. (Level AA)
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#28 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFfqyk1v6ZwM6OT6VAwXhJs3wN7Fmqb9ks5rIQLMgaJpZM4K745X>
.
|
|
I also agree that there is no need to combine them and that keeping them separate is the right way to go. |
|
I am ok with making it septate. I just combined them because of bloat |
|
@lseeman I'm not really sure what the: |
|
there is an exception for things like games or puzzles were a strange structure is part of the main function of the content
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:57:14 +0200 mapluke<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
@lseeman I'm not really sure what the:
"Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page."
is supposed to address. This is not referred to at all in the "Description", "Benefits" or "Testability" sections - so there are no clues given.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
However the SC doesn't refer to "strange structure"s. I would have thought that it could be argued that every structure "is an essential part of the main function of the Web page" and hence the exception would mean that the SC never applies. Also, in its current merged form, this is adding a new exception to the current meaning of SC 3.2.4 (which I doubt will be acceptable). |
|
Hi Mike |
|
hmmm I also don't see that this would be a serious problem. Do we have any data at all that shows that this is a serious problem? (having a control with the same name -- but different styling to match different locations or environments on different pages? Remember that each provision we add weakens all the others. We should only add SC where there is a known and significant barrier. I have not see this one. |
|
I think, but haven't researched the sources for the best evidence, that the intent of this SC is valid. I think that Gregg's example seems to suggest that it is the wording of "Styled consistently" glossary proposal that is "too strict" to work for the cases that Gregg cites. |
|
Can we change "are styled consistently" to "are available with consistent styles" or add "a mechanism is available such that" That way it can be handled via user setting , personalization such as using https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation and it will not be too strict for the default version the new version will be : |
|
excellent idea.
One size fits all — is not practical for broad inclusion
Personalization is available for all — is more practical and allows wider inclusion.
gregg
… On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Lisa Seeman ***@***.***> wrote:
Can we change "are styled consistently" to "are available with consistent styles"
or add "a mechanism is available such that"
That way it can be handled via user setting , personalization such as using https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation <https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation> and it will not be too strict for the default version
the new version will be :
A mechanism is available such that components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. @@A <https://github.com/a> mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3suQlhw9EIJCI2iSPi6RJujdm2gdks5rVRGNgaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
Consensus a a beautiful thing :)
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:06:40 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
excellent idea.
One size fits all — is not practical for broad inclusion
Personalization is available for all — is more practical and allows wider inclusion.
gregg
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Lisa Seeman <notifications@github.com> wrote:
>
> Can we change "are styled consistently" to "are available with consistent styles"
>
> or add "a mechanism is available such that"
>
> That way it can be handled via user setting , personalization such as using https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation <https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation> and it will not be too strict for the default version
>
> the new version will be :
> A mechanism is available such that components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. @@A <https://github.com/a> mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
> Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3suQlhw9EIJCI2iSPi6RJujdm2gdks5rVRGNgaJpZM4K745X>.
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
I agree that:
does seem to overcome Gregg's original concern. I hope that this means we can stick with the existing proposed glossary entry for "styled consistently". We do seem to have some encouraging consensus on these words. |
|
In the "Proposal for modifying existing SC" survey there was a 20 to 4 majority against changing existing SCs at this time. So I can see no point in trying to push #28 as a revision of SC 3.2.4. Surely this will prevent it from being considered at this time? I don't think we sacrifice anything if it is considered as a stand-alone new SC. |
|
I'm still not clear why we have the exception:
In a previous comment you said that the exception is "for things like games or puzzles where a strange structure is part of the main function of the content". Not being into games and puzzles I'm not familiar with such "strange structures" - my concern is that some might try to argue that all structure is "essential" and use this as an excuse for not needing to meet this SC. |
|
The exception is what makes it widely adoptable. Widely adoptable means that you can expect conformance for almost all cases.
However if you have a game or activity were gaining point is achieved by an activity with a wide range of different styles, then you have ruined that game or activity. Without the exception that is not reasonable.
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:07:00 +0200 mapluke<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
I'm still not clear why we have the exception:
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page.
In a previous comment you said that the exception is "for things like games or puzzles where a strange structure is part of the main function of the content". Not being into games and puzzles I'm not familiar with such "strange structures" - my concern is that some might try to argue that all structure is "essential" and use this as an excuse for not needing to meet this SC.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
Given the result of the WCAG survey, it will only be possible to apply this exception to the new "Consistent styles" SC. As someone who does not play computer games, I still cannot visualise exactly how this exception applies to "Consistent styles" - but I can retain it if you believe it is essential. |
|
Given the 24th January WCAG Resolution "we will NOT consider modify existing SCs at this point (while draft 2.1 SCs are being worked on)", I propose that we change #28 to be a new SC "Consistent styles". The SC text would, with Gregg and Lisa's suggestions, read:
I think that almost all of the remaining parts of the proposal can remain exactly as they are as they really only address the consistent styles issues and not the consistent identification.. Does anyone object to making the split as soon as possible? |
|
for example — in a game you may have to pass through many doors — and they all have different handles on them
this SC would say that all doors have the same function — so they should look alike and have the same kind of doors, locks and puzzles.
gregg
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:28 PM, mapluke ***@***.***> wrote:
Given the result of the WCAG survey, it will only be possible to apply this exception to the new "Consistent styles" SC. As someone who does not play computer games, I still cannot visualise exactly how this exception applies to "Consistent styles" - but I can retain it if you believe it is essential.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3jV13unICYGouJ7-f8eRh0faTxPVks5rVjTDgaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
I think we need a tweak to the exception
Exception: If THE STYLING OF specific structureS is an essential part of the [Delete —> main] function of the Web page."
a page may have several functions — all of them important.
gregg
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 12:47 PM, mapluke ***@***.***> wrote:
Given the 24th January WCAG Resolution "we will NOT consider modify existing SCs at this point (while draft 2.1 SCs are being worked on)", I propose that we change #28 <#28> to be a new SC "Consistent styles". The SC text would, with Gregg and Lisa's suggestions, read:
"A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page."
I think that almost all of the remaining parts of the proposal can remain exactly as they are as they really only address the consistent styles issues and not the consistent identification..
Does anyone object to making the split as soon as possible?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3pHFGHYxQSKjIDlKyxecyDapU_Wwks5rVjkbgaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
If that was the intended meaning of the exception then, for the first time, it begins to make sense to me! |
|
I may have missed it in the discussion but is there a definition of "Primary modality of the content" somewhere? |
|
Good question
gregg
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 4:31 PM, James Nurthen ***@***.***> wrote:
I may have missed it in the discussion but is there a definition of "Primary modality of the content" somewhere?
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3rdw_F4l0AZDalmZkRKChqL-_b-mks5rVm2UgaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
There is a statement at the end of "Related Glossary additions or changes" that says "Define the primary modality of the content as modalities considered in the design of the content." So I think this means that the definition would be:
This sounds like an evaluator needs to understand the design thinking of the content designer. Clearly this cannot be assumed. Unless the content can reveal the modalities that have been considered, the evaluator can have no idea what the primary modality of the content is. Sometimes this might be obvious, but for multimedia content the primary modality must surely be uncertain. |
|
I agree
I think it should be USED not considered.
I think MAYBE they meant it as “modalities considered to be in the design of the content” but that is bad english the way it is written — or bad logic.
gregg
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:14 PM, mapluke ***@***.***> wrote:
There is a statement at the end of "Related Glossary additions or changes" that says "Define the primary modality of the content as modalities considered in the design of the content." So I think this means that the definition would be:
"modalities considered in the design of the content".
This sounds like an evaluator needs to understand the design thinking of the content designer. Clearly this cannot be assumed. Unless the content can reveal the modalities that have been considered, the evaluator can have no idea what the primary modality of the content is. Sometimes this might be obvious, but for multimedia content the primary modality must surely be uncertain.
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3vAP_OFbwpxXq0tDEeksDvJWLEx-ks5rVoXhgaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
I wonder if we could drop "in the primary modality of the content". If the idea of a styling scheme makes sense in any modality, surely it should be styled consistently in all cases. |
|
I think it meant (before user adaptations or alternate presentations)
gregg
… On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:17 PM, mapluke ***@***.***> wrote:
I wonder if we could drop "in the primary modality of the content". If the idea of a styling scheme makes sense in any modality, surely it should be styled consistently in all cases. If
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3j94qxTOFR2m-PcfR9eAkwD21KpZks5rVoaggaJpZM4K745X>.
|
|
We kind of need it or it becomes an open ended instruction. For example if someone is using speech on a web page, the author does not need to test this modality if it is not the primary modality. Basicly it clarifies the scope
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:20:02 +0200 GreggVan<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
I think it meant (before user adaptations or alternate presentations)
gregg
> On Jan 24, 2017, at 6:17 PM, mapluke <notifications@github.com> wrote:
>
> I wonder if we could drop "in the primary modality of the content". If the idea of a styling scheme makes sense in any modality, surely it should be styled consistently in all cases. If
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3j94qxTOFR2m-PcfR9eAkwD21KpZks5rVoaggaJpZM4K745X>.
>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
We have a concept of baseline, so this realy just adds to that. What is the baseline for testing.
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 01:14:41 +0200 mapluke<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
There is a statement at the end of "Related Glossary additions or changes" that says "Define the primary modality of the content as modalities considered in the design of the content." So I think this means that the definition would be:
"modalities considered in the design of the content".
This sounds like an evaluator needs to understand the design thinking of the content designer. Clearly this cannot be assumed. Unless the content can reveal the modalities that have been considered, the evaluator can have no idea what the primary modality of the content is. Sometimes this might be obvious, but for multimedia content the primary modality must surely be uncertain.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@mapluke is there a PR ready for this, or do you need more time? |
|
I'd like to get agreement on two things first.
If those on the list can check these two issues and, depending on the result, a pull request should be feasible by the end of Monday (with preferably someone assisting me in this task). Does that work? |
|
My proposal for what we could do a pull request on is:
|
|
i am fine with that
All the best
Lisa Seeman
LinkedIn, Twitter
…---- On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:43:37 +0200 mapluke<notifications@github.com> wrote ----
My proposal for what we could do a pull request on is:
A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently.
Exception: If the styling of specific structures is an essential part of the function of the Web page.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
Stylistic variation to reinforce associations between themes is a regular design practice. As an example, a designer might have 9 buttons in a 3x3 grid, with each row coloured differently to reinforce a trait each row shares. They all have the same function (button) but they are styled differently.
Not sure what you mean by font style. You've already listed font and font color.
That sounds more like consistent navigation than consistent identification.
I think this step needs some more language. It is currently possible to read it to say that links, icons and all components should all be identified and styled the same. Needs a qualifier like “…that share the same role or purpose..” |
|
Interesting concerns. However, I'm not sure what "trait" related to each row would be that would not be, in some way either some difference in "information" or "function". So I think that if that "trait" was obvious to the evaluator they would be unlikely to fail it. If that "trait" is only in the designers mind, and is not clear to other observers, it deserves to fail! I think that the "styled consistently" definition could be improved and simplified and you have a valid comment on the test step. I'll give those more thought. |
|
I think we are still good for the pull request for also the example when something belongs to a diffrent context it sounds like it does not have the exact same function |
|
I'm even wondering if we need a glossary entry for "styled consistently". Suggest we omit this for the pull request. |
|
I'm even wondering if we need a glossary entry for "styled consistently". Suggest we omit this for the pull request.
Suggest therefore that you go ahead with a pull request with no glossary entries and see how that flies.
|
|
ok. lets leave it out and handle it in the "understanding section" |
|
Based on @mapluke email, The words the same type of information should go back in. I closed the pull request and will reopen it with the extra wording. Please confirm that is OK. |
|
I edited the definition of same type of information as let me know if that is ok and i will do the pull request again. |
|
This sounds OK to me. |
|
pull request made: #134 |
Consistent Identification @@ and Styles
SC Text
Current:
3.2.4 Consistent Identification: Components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. (Level AA)
Proposed:
Consistent Identification @@and Styles@@: Components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. @@components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page. @@ (Level AA)
Suggestion for Priority Level (AA)
AA
Related Glossary additions or changes
Styled consistently: usage of the same font or voice; font colors and background colors; shape; font style; images and special effects (and position in the same location relative to other recurring components and regions in the content).
[Same type of information : includes information with the same role, function, or concept, such as ARIA role, element name, or COGA concept.
Define the primary modality of the content as modalities considered in the design of the content.
What Principle and Guideline the SC falls within.
Principle 3, Guideline 3.2
Description
The intent of this Success Criterion is to ensure consistent styles of functional components that appear repeatedly within a set of Web pages. The intent is to be consistent within a single web page, and within a set of web pages, where something is repeated on more than one page in the set.
Benefits
The more predictable the content, the easier it is to know how to use it. Many users with cognitive and learning disabilities rely heavily on their familiarity with a web pages’ components. They may learn a specific interface. If identical functions are presented differently on different Web pages, the site will be considerably more difficult to use. It will also be confusing, and increase the cognitive load for people with cognitive disabilities, limiting some users from accessing the content. This supports those who have reading and some visual-perceptual difficulties due to Receptive Aphasia and acquired dyslexia; as well as those with general cognitive learning disabilities. It also helps those with visual-acuity difficulties, where stroke and age-related disabilities co-occur. Also, users with memory impairments will need to learn a lot more to be able to use the site, making it impossible for some. Therefore, consistent styles will increase the number of people who can use the site, and will help many others.
See also
Computers helping people with special needed, 14 international conference ICCHP 2014 Eds. Miesenberger, Fels, Archambault, Et. Al. Springer (pages 401). Paper: Tablets in the rehabilitation of memory impairment, K Dobsz et. al.
Neilson-aging
The Aphasia Alliance's Top Tips for 'Aphasia Friendlier' Communication taken from http://www.buryspeakeasy.org.uk/documents/Aphasia%20Alliance%20Aphasia%20Friendier%20Communication.pdf
Phiriyapkanon. Is big button interface enough for elderly users, Malardardalen University Press Sweden 2011.
COGA Resources
Testability
General test
For HTML and Web Content
Step 1. Ensure (by inspection) all components, including navigation components, links, and icons, are identified and styled consistently.
Step 2. Ensure all controls, which have the same function, are styled consistently.
Step 3: All headings with the same level and role have the same style.
Techniques
working groups notes (optional)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: