-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
Success Criterion 3.2.6 Accidental Activation #364
Comments
in short, the idea is that authors don't do things like
to trigger functionality/behavior, but instead use at least
or, even better if feasible, just
Wondering if a rewording as suggested here #330 could help, since if authors do follow platform/UA conventions, then it wouldn't be "accidental" |
Yes that would help Perhaps **For content that processes its own single pointer activations , at least one of the following is true:
I'm still not sure if bullets three and four are effective though. If the individual physically cannot stay on the control as they release, then being able to reverse the action just puts them back where they started. They still have not been effectively able to activate the control. I guess the theory is they can just keep trying until they are successful, and this provision is not for individuals to can never get mouse up to work for them, but for those where it is sometimes a problem. |
That's right, for the former we have 2.1.1 |
We made a revision that we think addresses your concern, please review. |
I can’t find this provision anymore.
is this now 2.6.1 ?
(editorial — “Which” in 2.6.1 should be “that”
processes and outcomes achievable through user action which <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html?defs#dfn-functionality>THAT can be operated by device motion or user motion can also be operated by a part of the content that is perceived by users as a single control for a distinct function <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/index.html?defs#dfn-user-interface-components>and can be disabled to prevent accidental actuation, except when:
thx
g
… On Dec 6, 2017, at 4:11 AM, Andrew Kirkpatrick ***@***.***> wrote:
We made a revision that we think addresses your concern, please review.
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#364 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJph3p4-av1l-YtrHGsZJO63Eo4d_E_1ks5s9gXLgaJpZM4PKzga>.
|
Accidental Activation has been renamed to Pointer Cancellation. You can find the latest here: http://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/master/guidelines/#pointer-cancellation |
==================================================================
Most of this looks like it is outside of the control of the page author - no?
Isnt this controlled by the user agent?
if so - how would an author know which user agent is being used -- or change the behavior of the user agent (without putting javascript on each page to take over those behaviors and script their own user agent behaviors) ?
there is an understanding doc -- but there are no sufficient techniques listed. This would be important for understanding this. and they need to exist for different technologies too.
so good thought but not sure it is doable without more information
looking forward to your information on this
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: