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.

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

Update Understanding On Input (SC 3.2.2) #1017

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

JAWS-test2
Copy link
Contributor

Fixes #898

Base automatically changed from master to main March 5, 2021 20:42
@stevefaulkner stevefaulkner self-assigned this Oct 18, 2024
Copy link

netlify bot commented Nov 5, 2024

Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit 8010ad1
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/67c1cdf1d3c427000828c260
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-1017--wcag2.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

patrickhlauke and others added 2 commits November 29, 2024 15:48
swapped out 
violation for failure
impaired for disabled
removed unnecessary empty lines
@w3c w3c deleted a comment from patrickhlauke Feb 21, 2025
@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed on backlog call, 2/21.

@patrickhlauke
Copy link
Member

I reviewed this PR for the WCAG 2.x group. I'll admit that while it makes sense, I'm not sure it's necessary. The first change - mentioning that things still need to be keyboard-accessible - seems an unnecessary cross-reference (as the same hold true for all other SCs). The same is true for the additional note
If the change of context makes the operation difficult for disabled people, it is recommended to avoid the context change.

I can see how this seems to directly address the problem brought up in #898 ... but it seems overly specific for something that, in essence, is a case that currently falls between the cracks ... "nominally passes the word of the SC, but it a dreadful user experience"

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Feb 28, 2025

I believe several people have indicated this is a failure of 2.1.1.
I agree that the wording of On Input suggests that if you tell someone it's going to happen in advance, you pass On Input, but you'd still fail 2.1.1

I'd like to see if we have agreement that the problem described in the original issue -- someone triggers an on input change in a radio button group, it advances a survey -- would be considered a failure.

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Feb 28, 2025

Resolving this through #898

@mbgower mbgower closed this Feb 28, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Technique G13 - allows surveys to advance on input with notice, even radio buttons?
5 participants