Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Adding Common constraints for accessibility #316

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022
Merged

Adding Common constraints for accessibility #316

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022

Conversation

mlagally
Copy link
Contributor

@mlagally mlagally commented Nov 4, 2022 •
edited by pr-preview bot
Loading

Introducing a new section with two requirements to satisfy the needs of people with disabilities.

Preview | Diff

sebastiankb
sebastiankb requested changes Nov 4, 2022
View reviewed changes
index.html Outdated
users with disabilities.
</p>
<p><span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="common-constraints-a11y-1">
It is MANDATORY to provide a <code>title</code> that can be automatically rendered in a non-visual way
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, we should use here the rfc2119 terminology "SHOULD".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does this apply to "all" title terms in the TD model or only the top level one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, we should use here the rfc2119 terminology "SHOULD".

agreed. I think we should make it conditionally mandatory for scenarios with people with disabilities, i.e. replace MANDATORY with REQUIRED.

I suggest we apply it to all terms - partially "hiding" items seems not to be appropriate.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fyi we have already this kind of discussion here: #138

@egekorkan
Copy link
Contributor

I want to record my opinion from the call:
It is not clear where these terms are required. If it is for Thing level, we already need title as required by the TD spec. If it is for all levels, then it would mean having these terms literally everywhere in the TD, including data schemas, which would make TDs explode. The assertions MUST be testable and these are currently not specific enough.

@mlagally mlagally merged commit f06e542 into main Nov 9, 2022
@egekorkan egekorkan mentioned this pull request Nov 9, 2022
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@egekorkan egekorkan Awaiting requested review from egekorkan

@chachamimm chachamimm Awaiting requested review from chachamimm

@JaninaSajka JaninaSajka Awaiting requested review from JaninaSajka

@mmccool mmccool Awaiting requested review from mmccool

@benfrancis benfrancis Awaiting requested review from benfrancis

@sebastiankb sebastiankb Awaiting requested review from sebastiankb

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@mlagally @egekorkan @sebastiankb