Update branch from main#5118
Open
bruce-usab wants to merge 30 commits into
Open
Conversation
## ARIA18 Updated HTML snippet to use updated working example code Working example: 1. remove jquery 2. add `viewport` 3. update css to use modern positioning 4. add `inert` attribute ## ARIA 19 1. Removed jQuery 2. Add `autocomplete` attributes 3. Removed 404 resource link 4. Removed old editors CSS link 6. Added `code` tags 7. Updated the list of errors to use a list instead of 3 paragraphs ## ARIA21 1. Remove outdated content 2. Update examples to add `autocomplete` attributes 3. Updated resource links 4. Split the example code into separate `pre` blocks ## Identifying Errors In Data Format example 1. removed the jQuery and rewrote using vanilla JavaScript 2. removed several unused functions 3. simplified the date validity field 4. added a replacement image for the one that was missing 5. removed an unnecessary `alert` role 6. moved explanatory content to the technique 8. removed out of date assistive technology information Previews: * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/aria/aria18 * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/aria/aria19 * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/aria/aria21 * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/working-examples/aria-alert-identify-errors/ * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/working-examples/aria-alertdialog-identify-errors/ * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/working-examples/aria-invalid-data-format/ * https://deploy-preview-4981--wcag2.netlify.app/working-examples/aria-invalid-required-fields/ --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> Co-authored-by: Detlev Fischer <df@3needs.org> Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net> Co-authored-by: Giacomo Petri <giacomo.petri@usablenet.com> Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <bruce@bailey4.us> Co-authored-by: Kenneth G. Franqueiro <kfranqueiro@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: chaals <chaals@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <ac@alastc.com> Co-authored-by: Matt Garrish <mattgarrish@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Lori Oakley <32885548+ljoakley@users.noreply.github.com>
…k F109, add figures and mention "other" cognitive tests (#4832) * rename "Authentication Approaches" to "Login forms" - the former implies that this section will start to list approaches, when in fact it simply talks about login forms * tweak the language to better cover/differentiate user agents and third-party password managers * explicitly mention things that would not be acceptable - preventing browser/password managers from automatically populating fields, *or* stopping copy/paste * remove the test step mention about pasting OR auto-filling in F109; this failure technique is in fact orthogonal to what is being discussed in #3550 - the point of this failure technique is about the format of the entry, not about pasting versus auto-filling, but removing this apparent ambiguity should help * add illustrative images to F109 to make it clearer what the problem is that the failure refers to * add illustrative images to both 3.3.8 and 3.3.9 understanding * add a new section to 3.3.8 understanding about other types of cognitive tests (math test, logic test, etc) https://deploy-preview-4832--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/accessible-authentication-minimum#other-cognitive-tests Closes #3550 Previews: * https://deploy-preview-4832--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/accessible-authentication-minimum * https://deploy-preview-4832--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f109 * https://deploy-preview-4832--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/accessible-authentication-enhanced
This PR looks to clarify the third advisory technique bullet for SC 1.3.6 Identify Purpose - aiming to close #2545 The previous text for the bullet just stated: >Using aria-invalid and aria-required This PR extends this text to mention that one could use the `required` attribute _or_ those aria attributes to identify required fields and/or those with validation errors. Thus, tying why the attributes are mentioned to identifying the states of these fields. I did not add this advisory technique to 1.3.5 Input Purpose, as was mentioned in the comments for the original issue. IMO, I don't think it's necessary to mention the concept of required in that SC. But, if others in the backlog taskforce disagree, it'd be easy enough to add to this Pr... [Preview](https://deploy-preview-4663--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/identify-purpose#techniques) --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <bruce@bailey4.us> Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
) This fixes a bug in the logic added in #4170, which looked up errata for terms using their auto-generated ID in the Understanding docs, rather than by their explicit ID as defined in the `guidelines` folder. These are sometimes but not always the same, so some lookups would fail.
…ces (#4817) Closes #4444 Preview: https://deploy-preview-4817--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/pause-stop-hide (last note before the "Benefits" section) --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
) While ideally we'd want to actually change the normative wording of the SC (see #4952), if that fails for now, this PR adds a note to 4.1.3 Status Messages understanding that handwaves "when we say roles and properties, we also meant accessibility API access". It also adds a new technique and working example demonstrating the use of `ariaNotify`. /cc @adampage @scottaohara @fstrr Previews: * https://deploy-preview-5079--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/status-messages (note at the end of "Intent") * ARIA27 https://deploy-preview-5079--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/aria/aria27 * working example https://deploy-preview-5079--wcag2.netlify.app/working-examples/aria-notify-status-message/ --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net> Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <bruce@bailey4.us> Co-authored-by: Kenneth G. Franqueiro <kfranqueiro@users.noreply.github.com>
Ports over most of the ideas from #4316, but extends/clarifies them further. Expands on what "standard exit methods" are (and the fact that WCAG doesn't actually normatively define these, that they're hardware/OS/UA dependent, and that authors/auditors will need to use their judgement here). Also reiterates that even if untrapping involves "non-standard" methods, that's fine as long as users are informed how to do it (but still needs to be using the keyboard). Also cleans up the markup a bit. Tweaks the modal dialog example (focusing on the focus trapping, rather than the opposite - which parts of the page don't receive focus anymore) and adds a new example for Rich Text Editors. Supersedes #4316 (as that PR didn't allow for changes to be pushed to it, including rebasing it to the latest main branch) Preview: https://deploy-preview-4726--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/no-keyboard-trap
…#4814) Whether or not a text alternative is visually/visibly presented to users when CSS is disabled/unavailable is beyond the scope of 1.1.1. Rewording the last failure check to make the original intention clearer. x-ref #4660 (comment) EDIT: after some further consideration, this PR also: * changes the wording throughout away from "important information" * retitle the technique * in the tests, it adds the caveat that the information conveyed by the image is only of interest if it is not already conveyed elsewhere on the page * make test step 2 positive rather than negative, and amend the expected result, to make it more easily understandable https://deploy-preview-4814--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f3 --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net> Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <bruce@bailey4.us>
This short "in passing" mention in a note about CSS background images appears to introduce a whole new normative requirement by the backdoor, in a technique note, which effectively fails sites that don't provide both a background colour AND background image in their CSS, because users MAY have changed their browser not to load images. This is not covered anywhere else in WCAG, and in many other places WCAG explicitly does NOT care about how users may have modified/changed their browser settings. Not even 1.1.1 mentions the scenario as a particular reason/concern. This note oversteps its remit. EDIT: reworked this PR to only remove/amend the apparent normative requirement to define BOTH a background image AND background colour - replaced with a note about contrast testing. Further, this PR now corrects the inaccurate section about inherited color/background (background is not inherited - if not defined, an element has a *transparent* background, so what counts is that at least one of the ancestors of the element has a background x-ref #4660 (comment) preview: https://deploy-preview-4823--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f24 --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
…ive) (#5037) single word is more common in the wild, and used more often in WCAG and its documentation than the two-word variant noticed as part of work on #4843 there is also a single instance in the normative definition for single pointer. will file a separate editorial erratum PR for that (see #5038)
Noticed as part of the work on #4832 This adds the "Figure X..." part to all figure captions in techniques (this currently only happens in understanding pages) Closes #5061 Preview example: https://deploy-preview-5062--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f69 (compare to https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/failures/F69)
redo of #2899 - while the "black/white colour blindness" part has since been fixed, this adds the idea that links only distinguished by colour can be difficult to distinguish for everybody. Preview: https://deploy-preview-4887--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/general/g183
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/css/C41#tests > The required change of contrast for Focus Appearance (Minimum) is 3:1, this technique goes slightly beyond the minumum requirement. The success criterion "Focus Appearance (Minimum)" was renamed "Focus Appearance," and "Focus Appearance (Enhanced)" was deleted. Therefore, the change of contrast ratio shown in the procedure should be 3:1 instead of 4.5:1. EDIT by @patrickhlauke: also, while here, updated the CSS code sample to match the following image --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
…hniques (#5002) As I constantly find myself having to explain to some folks that techniques are just informative (the amount of times I had to explain that even if a site doesn't use a particular documented technique, that's fine as long as the actual ask of the success criterion has been satisfied), this adds a standard boxout/disclaimer/note at the top of all techniques pages. This should catch folks who just "stumble" directly across a technique (from a search engine result or similar). To go with it, this also expands the explanation given in the existing boxouts on the techniques index page and the about page. Closes #1567 Closes #3469 Previews: * the top of the techniques index page "Summary" boxout https://deploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/ * [Diff from current index](https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG22%2FTechniques%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app%2Ftechniques%2F) * ditto at the top of the "About techniques" page https://deploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/about * [Diff from current About page](https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG22%2FTechniques%2Fabout&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app%2Ftechniques%2Fabout) * random example of one of the positive techniques https://deploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/aria/aria1 * random example of a failure technique https://deploy-preview-5002--wcag2.netlify.app/techniques/failures/f1 --------- Co-authored-by: Kevin White <kevin@w3.org>
Wanted to follow up on #2136 It isn't clear that it is a good example. Often folks find examples where there are problems vs examples of it working. --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
This removes instances of words that have accidentally been written twice in a row. Kevin flagged one of these to me, so I ran a couple of RegExp searches to find others.
Closes #5059 Clarifying different types of buttons and whether they're in or out of scope Preview: https://deploy-preview-5107--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/on-input [Diff](https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwcag%2Funderstanding%2Fon-input&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-5107--wcag2.netlify.app%2Funderstanding%2Fon-input) --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
…derstanding (#4402) While exempting text or non-text that is part of a logo/logotype makes sense (due to some companies' strict corporate identity requirements), it's nonetheless problematic when these logos/logotypes act as links of buttons. These notes try to clarify the situation ... for 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 we can only suggest a best practice of - if possible - choosing an alternative that is still allowed by the CI/brand guidelines, or at the very least an additional link/control with the same purpose and with sufficient contrast. This part of the original PR has been split out into a separate PR #5113 > For 1.4.11 there is a wrinkle here because the SC distinguishes between user interface controls and graphical objects. Logos on their own count as graphical objects, and if the CI/brand guidelines stipulated non-contrasting colours, then that is "essential". However, the "user interface control" part of a link/button with a logo is still subject to the requirements of the UIC needing to be identifiable. For 1.4.11, this PR adds the same best practice suggestion about using a logo variant or alternative control. Lastly, this PR addresses the situation where logos have been used, but it's the author's choice - rather than a corporate identity/brand requirement - that the logos have insufficient contrast. Closes #1742 x-ref #902 #4376 #1275 #1739 Previews: * https://deploy-preview-4402--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/contrast-minimum * https://deploy-preview-4402--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/contrast-enhanced * https://deploy-preview-4402--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/non-text-contrast --------- Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <ac@alastc.com> Co-authored-by: Francis Storr <francis.storr@intel.com> Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
…de Understanding (#4822) Re-do of #4441 which had merge conflicts that couldn't be resolved (directly) * Fixes typo in URL that broke the link to animation from interactions * Rewords the note to better explain what "starts automatically" means with thanks to @yatil for doing the original PR preview: https://deploy-preview-4822--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/pause-stop-hide (look for the note towards the end of the "Intent" section that starts with "Content starts automatically when...") --------- Co-authored-by: Giacomo Petri <giacomo.petri@usablenet.com>
#5077) Historically, `aria-relevant` has been unreliable and inconsistently supported. Currently, it has major implementation flaws in Chrome/Edge (see #4996 (comment)). This PR removes mention of it for the server log / timestamped example. In addition, this cleans-up the code for the two working examples (including the commented-out stubs for node removal in the server log working example) Supersedes #4996 Closes #4993 --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
…daries (#5064) Originally, "placeholder" was mentioned in passing in the "Boundaries" section. However, if placeholder text is the only "text inside the control", as soon as a user enters a single empty character, the input - if it has low contrast border - would immediately fail 1.4.11 (as then there's no indication anymore giving users a hint about the presence of the control). This PR rewrites the whole boundaries explanation to hopefully make it clearer when boundaries are needed and when they're not, and why. Further, this adds a new failure example to the "Failing User Interface Component Examples" table - an input without any containing text and low contrast border - and it tweaks the preceding example of an input with a custom caret to be just about the caret (and not ALSO have low contrast border), so make it clearer what the failure here is. Closes #4413 Preview: https://deploy-preview-5064--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/non-text-contrast (specifically https://deploy-preview-5064--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/non-text-contrast#boundaries and the second table - the failing examples - in https://deploy-preview-5064--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/non-text-contrast#user-interface-component-examples) [Diff preview](https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2FWCAG22%2FUnderstanding%2Fnon-text-contrast&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fdeploy-preview-5064--wcag2.netlify.app%2Funderstanding%2Fnon-text-contrast#boundaries) at Boundaries --------- Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net> Co-authored-by: Bruce Bailey <bruce@bailey4.us>
This removes the line that regenerates the WCAG 2 Requirements document, to allow gh-pages pushes to succeed. This has been failing for the past couple of weeks, presumably coinciding with the release of ReSpec 37. The WCAG 2 Requirements document references the long-deprecated `w3c-respec-common` URL, which depends on ReSpec 25. Given that the Requirements document has not been meaningfully changed in many years, and if we ever had the intention to republish it, we'd likely need to update it to work with `w3c-respec` using the latest ReSpec version, it seems like we should be fine skipping this step.
) Flattens SVG `<text>` elements to ensure consistent rendering across platforms. See [comment in #4960](#4960 (comment)). For comparison: [production](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html) versus [deploy preview](https://deploy-preview-5122--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/non-text-contrast) — no meaningful visual differences. --------- Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
This removes `respec-config.js` from under `techniques` and `understanding` which likely survived from back when they were published to TR space (which hasn't been done since 2.0 AFAIK), and also cleans out deprecated and defunct options from the main guidelines' `respecConfig`: - `useExperimentalStyles` was phased out some time after `respec-w3c-common` was deprecated (i.e. sometime after v25.6.0); it is only referenced there, not in `respec-w3c` which is relied upon now - RDFa support was removed in 2018 - The permalink options were removed in 2018 when the current hard-coded version was added; none of the options involving permalinks exist in respec anymore - `diffTool` support was dropped in 2017, at the same time that beautifier support was dropped and the save HTML module was added - `tocIntroductory` is documented as deprecated and non-functional - Ironically, I cannot find any trace of `trace` in the respec repo/docs _or_ its commit/issue/PR history
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
9 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.