Consistent Identification and Styles about wcag21 HOT 46 CLOSED

Looks good. Why combine with an existing SC and confuse things. Why not just make a new SC. Simplifies Understanding WCAG 2.1 and makes it easier to have Sufficient Techniques. (also need examples. This looks good but I have no idea what it means).

Consistent Identification Styles: Components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page. (Level AA)

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

Assigned to Mike Pluke (@mapluke) - https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Managers_Phase1

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

I also agree that there is no need to combine them and that keeping them separate is the right way to go.

from wcag21.

I am ok with making it septate. I just combined them because of bloat

from wcag21.

@lseeman I'm not really sure what the:
"Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page."
is supposed to address. This is not referred to at all in the "Description", "Benefits" or "Testability" sections - so there are no clues given.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

However the SC doesn't refer to "strange structure"s. I would have thought that it could be argued that every structure "is an essential part of the main function of the Web page" and hence the exception would mean that the SC never applies. Also, in its current merged form, this is adding a new exception to the current meaning of SC 3.2.4 (which I doubt will be acceptable).

from wcag21.

Hi Mike
I think it might help your job as sc manager if we have a chat and try and resolve this and te other issues. The task is to build consensus
can you email me some times you are free tomorrow morning?

from wcag21.

hmmm
I think this is too strict. It means that if I have something in the top-of-the-page header on one page where it is large and styled to fit the header (e.g. large white text because the header is dark green) -- I am now prevented from using that functionality anywhere else in the website in any location other than the top of the page -- because I would have to do it in another color (white on white is invisible.

I also don't see that this would be a serious problem. Do we have any data at all that shows that this is a serious problem? (having a control with the same name -- but different styling to match different locations or environments on different pages?

Remember that each provision we add weakens all the others. We should only add SC where there is a known and significant barrier. I have not see this one.

from wcag21.

I think, but haven't researched the sources for the best evidence, that the intent of this SC is valid.

I think that Gregg's example seems to suggest that it is the wording of "Styled consistently" glossary proposal that is "too strict" to work for the cases that Gregg cites.

from wcag21.

Can we change "are styled consistently" to "are available with consistent styles"

or add "a mechanism is available such that"

That way it can be handled via user setting , personalization such as using https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation and it will not be too strict for the default version

the new version will be :
A mechanism is available such that components that have the same functionality within a set of Web pages are identified consistently. @@A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

I agree that:

• "A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content."

does seem to overcome Gregg's original concern. I hope that this means we can stick with the existing proposed glossary entry for "styled consistently". We do seem to have some encouraging consensus on these words.

from wcag21.

In the "Proposal for modifying existing SC" survey there was a 20 to 4 majority against changing existing SCs at this time. So I can see no point in trying to push #28 as a revision of SC 3.2.4. Surely this will prevent it from being considered at this time? I don't think we sacrifice anything if it is considered as a stand-alone new SC.

from wcag21.

I'm still not clear why we have the exception:

• Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page.

In a previous comment you said that the exception is "for things like games or puzzles where a strange structure is part of the main function of the content". Not being into games and puzzles I'm not familiar with such "strange structures" - my concern is that some might try to argue that all structure is "essential" and use this as an excuse for not needing to meet this SC.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

Given the result of the WCAG survey, it will only be possible to apply this exception to the new "Consistent styles" SC. As someone who does not play computer games, I still cannot visualise exactly how this exception applies to "Consistent styles" - but I can retain it if you believe it is essential.

from wcag21.

Given the 24th January WCAG Resolution "we will NOT consider modify existing SCs at this point (while draft 2.1 SCs are being worked on)", I propose that we change #28 to be a new SC "Consistent styles". The SC text would, with Gregg and Lisa's suggestions, read:

• "A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently in the primary modality of the content.
• Exception: If a specific structure is an essential part of the main function of the Web page."

I think that almost all of the remaining parts of the proposal can remain exactly as they are as they really only address the consistent styles issues and not the consistent identification..

Does anyone object to making the split as soon as possible?

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

If that was the intended meaning of the exception then, for the first time, it begins to make sense to me!

from wcag21.

I may have missed it in the discussion but is there a definition of "Primary modality of the content" somewhere?

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

There is a statement at the end of "Related Glossary additions or changes" that says "Define the primary modality of the content as modalities considered in the design of the content." So I think this means that the definition would be:

• "modalities considered in the design of the content".

This sounds like an evaluator needs to understand the design thinking of the content designer. Clearly this cannot be assumed. Unless the content can reveal the modalities that have been considered, the evaluator can have no idea what the primary modality of the content is. Sometimes this might be obvious, but for multimedia content the primary modality must surely be uncertain.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

I wonder if we could drop "in the primary modality of the content". If the idea of a styling scheme makes sense in any modality, surely it should be styled consistently in all cases.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

@mapluke is there a PR ready for this, or do you need more time?

from wcag21.

I'd like to get agreement on two things first.

• Lisa believes "we kind of need" the words "in the primary modality of the content", but I can see no way in which an evaluators can reliably determine what this modality is if there is mixed modality content. Unless there is a convincing argument for how this can be done then I think that these words should be removed. Several people have also expressed a problem with this concept. I and others will need to hear and understand that argument.
• See if anyone objects to Gregg's re-writing of the exception to:
  -- Exception: If THE STYLING OF specific structureS is an essential part of the [Delete —> main] function of the Web page."

If those on the list can check these two issues and, depending on the result, a pull request should be feasible by the end of Monday (with preferably someone assisting me in this task). Does that work?

from wcag21.

My proposal for what we could do a pull request on is:

• A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently.
• Exception: If the styling of specific structures is an essential part of the function of the Web page.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

Components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, are styled consistently

Stylistic variation to reinforce associations between themes is a regular design practice. As an example, a designer might have 9 buttons in a 3x3 grid, with each row coloured differently to reinforce a trait each row shares. They all have the same function (button) but they are styled differently.
Depending on how one interprets “same functionality” and “identified consistently” I can see someone arguing that such a design conceit fails this SC. The same consideration applies to differences in typeface to reinforce text of the same function on a different topic within a design.

font style

Not sure what you mean by font style. You've already listed font and font color.

(and position in the same location relative to other recurring components and regions in the content).

That sounds more like consistent navigation than consistent identification.

Step 1. Ensure (by inspection) all components, including navigation components, links, and icons, are identified and styled consistently.

I think this step needs some more language. It is currently possible to read it to say that links, icons and all components should all be identified and styled the same. Needs a qualifier like “…that share the same role or purpose..”

from wcag21.

Interesting concerns. However, I'm not sure what "trait" related to each row would be that would not be, in some way either some difference in "information" or "function". So I think that if that "trait" was obvious to the evaluator they would be unlikely to fail it. If that "trait" is only in the designers mind, and is not clear to other observers, it deserves to fail!

I think that the "styled consistently" definition could be improved and simplified and you have a valid comment on the test step. I'll give those more thought.

from wcag21.

I think we are still good for the pull request for
A mechanism is available such that components that have the same type of information, or have the same function within a set of Web pages, can be styled consistently, unless the styling of specific structures is an essential part of the function of the Web page.
@mbgower concerns can and should be clarified with techniques and the "understanding" section

also the example when something belongs to a diffrent context it sounds like it does not have the exact same function

from wcag21.

I'm even wondering if we need a glossary entry for "styled consistently". Suggest we omit this for the pull request.

from wcag21.

from wcag21.

ok. lets leave it out and handle it in the "understanding section"
We can also leave out same type of information and just make it function - that addresses mikes other concern. is that OK?
We might be able to put it back after the editors draft if we can find a way to add clarity

from wcag21.

Based on @mapluke email, The words the same type of information should go back in. I closed the pull request and will reopen it with the extra wording. Please confirm that is OK.
I assume the definition should of same type of information should also go in.

from wcag21.

I edited the definition of same type of information as
information with the same role, function, or concept, such as ARIA role or element name

let me know if that is ok and i will do the pull request again.

from wcag21.

This sounds OK to me.

from wcag21.

pull request made: #134

from wcag21.