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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
WCAG 2.2 CR 3 updates #3123
WCAG 2.2 CR 3 updates #3123
Changes from all commits
0038836
1733728
9e9af81
2a7cd2c
36a0d80
186bcaa
2d83963
9340aba
50b6a26
dfd2665
36717d7
9c188ee
e22bdb5
7fea64f
0f41593
bef570a
728a19c
358097e
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i'm still unclear what that second part actually means in practice...how would I imagine a link on a single line? it's a bit cryptic
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this also makes it confusing when considering targets that are fragmented on purpose somehow...would the "pretend it's all together" approach apply to them too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ah, as you were, I see you answered this in the email
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
however, are you re-applying this second sentence here in the PR? or am I getting confused?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is applicable to focus-appearance, and yes, if the link were not wrapped, that's the size.
It is not applicable to target-size, both due to the inline exception, and because a target is defined as a region (not multiple regions).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This note is wrong. A 2px border around the perimeter isn't 2 * width + 2 * height. You're missing the corners in that. Instead its 2 * (width+2) + 2 * (height+2). And for a circle it's not 4𝜋 * radius. It's 2𝜋 * (radius+1) + 2𝜋 * (radius+2).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wilco, the example is 2h+2w-4, not 2h+2w. You are measuring the internal width and height in your calculation, which I guess we should be clear on which way is correct. I thought that we had settled on the original form (2h+2w-4).
For the circle, you are saying the same thing, except perhaps making it less clear since you do part of the math. The perimeter of a circle is 2𝜋r (or 𝜋d as I learned it) so if we want to clarify the computation for different border thicknesses we should use 2𝜋r*border thickness. And again, we need to clarify if the border is inside or outside the circle itself.
I think that we might need to just mention that authors and evaluators need to start with the basic formula and make adjustments if the border extends beyond the bounds of the shape.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In my opinion, it makes no sense to count the actual pixels for a rectangle and therefore subtract the corner pixels, but for a circle take the theoretical pixels and subtract nothing. The actual pixels for a circle can deviate considerably from 4 x PI x radius, especially for small circles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Wilco,
See the comment above. Drawing the perimeter outside the component would lead to odd fails, by a few px.
Drawing it with 1px inside, 1px outside leads to the simplest calc as 2w + 2h - 4 and the outer of 2w + 2h + 4, giving total of 4w + 4h.
Drawing both pixels of the perimeter inside would be the most conservative, with the exact calc being 4w + 4h – 16.
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
does this need a new definition somewhere for "bounding box"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
probably something very high-level like https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Bounding_box (rather than that definition of "minimum bounding box" that used to be used for focus appearance)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, seeing as focus-appearance doesn't use that definition any more, I think we can re-use it here. The latest push includes that change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I do think the definition on https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Bounding_box is quite nice and concise. also, not quite sure what "For components which wrap onto multiple lines as part of a sentence or block of text (such as hypertext links), the bounding box is based on how the component would appear on a single line." part of the minimum bounding box definition actually means/shakes out to, so if we ARE going with that definition, this may need some clarification
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that the Mozilla bounding box is definition seems sufficient. We have the wrinkle that our bounding box for hypertext is to based on the bounding box formed when linked text is unspooled to a single line.