– DRAFT –
Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

visual controls

iseas from Lisa: instuctions are availible from the page an icon is availible that souly indicates that more controls are availible

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cn9SvuOiu_m-phcyK5IdtipNzyoM2pkcCHbnWfcqsNc/edit#heading=h.e5ykt7vvfe44

wording: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#heading=h.nshunds56c64

example: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cn9SvuOiu_m-phcyK5IdtipNzyoM2pkcCHbnWfcqsNc/edit#heading=h.e5ykt7vvfe44

abi: we use all actional items are visible distigwishabe fr4om static components

<Fazio> +1

<Fazio> +1 to Abi's wording

exseptions: ina navigation area

<jon_avila> There is a setting in iOS that you can turn on to show boundaries on iOS. It's called "button shapes" under Settings > accessibility.

<AbiJ> Text from example criteria: - All actionable items (e.g. links, buttons, navigation items, swipe areas) are visually distinguished from static components (via underline, colour and weight variants, arrows, border, etc). When colour is used to identify actionable items, an additional visual cue is also provided.

<jon_avila> I like the direction from Abi - do we need secondary actions distinguished from primary actions or are we willing to let that go?

<jon_avila> Would >= 3:1 contrast different work for Abi's proposal - and if so - contrast to what - other static text?

mike: color has to come out, as it is contredicting

<jon_avila> Color is really helpful though - so we don't want to discourage color

abi: you have to add another cue with color

mike: is it mainly hover

dave: also disapearing controls

lisa: also think about dementia and

mike: non persistance

<jon_avila> Yes - that was my recollection as well Abi.

abi: we started with visualble items on all controls, but it got cut

abi: we also have a control on hova that already passed

<jon_avila> The problem with saying hover only is that it can pass with on focus which doesn't help the group.

<ShawnT> I'd like to create a list of examples that would pass and which ones would fail

Dave, are controls things that control a system

<mbgower> Abi's wording is "actionable items"

lisa: defined in area

<jon_avila> Components in WCAG is defined and is pretty broad.

mike: likes abis wording

<ShawnT> I was redoing this document but didn't get a chance to finish it

<Fazio> 1 no

<AbiJ> 1 - exception as in navigation area

<jon_avila> No. It's not visually distinguished.

<ShawnT> https://github.com/w3c/wcag

<ShawnT> +1 to the demo

<mbgower> 0. It's a 'grey' area. It's not text.

<ShawnT> @mbgower can you share your screen?

<jon_avila> The names do appear bolded in Github as well and also are hoverable.

<ShawnT> you don't get the same information on hover with avatar and name but they are the same link destination

adding wording to the document

Abi: exmple 1: if they had a thing that actional things are bold, and that is used consitently

<mbgower> correct, AND it is for a set of pages, which is a very confined subset of web pages

abi: maybe consistenly in a page

<ShawnT> +1 to the instructions

lisa added exseptions Or instructions are available from the page The actionable item is an icon The design patern is in a published design guide

add tools bar exseptions

<jon_avila> For me personally I find that many interfaces are going to flat single color no lines separating navigation, editing, etc. and I'm not sure where to focus visually and it's not clear what are textual details and what are navigation.

david: aslo editing block

<Fazio> +1 Abi

abi: you took the action of entering editing area

<mbgower> I'm trying to figure out how we can work "consistent" / "consistently" into this. It's quite difficult

design guided are not good

(abi)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#

wording: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#

examples: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cn9SvuOiu_m-phcyK5IdtipNzyoM2pkcCHbnWfcqsNc/edit#

<jon_avila> user interaction possibilities.

<yao> Have to go for another meeting. Thanks everyone! This is a very productive session :)

rssagent, make minutes

We went though the option 2 and 3 from coga (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfEgRs99CBc9vVHhCNowwj07v6UDGb-2QaB9IlfBZ5A/edit#) and then went though the examples. we found adding exseptions have made it much quicker to consitently agree if it passes or fails. We added a column with our conclusions We can live with either option 2 or 3, whichever wcag can make work. We prefer 3 as it is closer to the original intent, but if 2 is easier to ge[CUT]