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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Adding Common constraints for accessibility #316

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 9, 2022
Merged

Adding Common constraints for accessibility #316

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
f4583d0
Adding Common constraints for accessibility
mlagally Nov 4, 2022
450cf42
Update index.html
mlagally Nov 4, 2022
95b435b
Update index.html
mlagally Nov 9, 2022
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 18 additions & 0 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -674,6 +674,24 @@ <h1>Common Constraints</h1>

<!-- Identifiers TODO -->

<!-- Accessibility -->

<section id="common-constraints-accessibilityy">
<h2 id="accessibility">Accessibility</h2>
<p>Authors of <em>Thing Descriptions</em> must ensure that the things described by them are accessible to
users with disabilities.
</p>
<p><span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="common-constraints-a11y-1">
It is MANDATORY to provide a <code>title</code> that can be automatically rendered in a non-visual way
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, we should use here the rfc2119 terminology "SHOULD".

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

does this apply to "all" title terms in the TD model or only the top level one?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think, we should use here the rfc2119 terminology "SHOULD".

agreed. I think we should make it conditionally mandatory for scenarios with people with disabilities, i.e. replace MANDATORY with REQUIRED.

I suggest we apply it to all terms - partially "hiding" items seems not to be appropriate.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

fyi we have already this kind of discussion here: #138

(e.g. using a screen reader),
for things that may be used in deployments with users with disabilities.</span>
</p>
<p><span class="rfc2119-assertion" id="common-constraints-a11y-2">
It is highly RECOMMENDED to provide a <code>description</code> that can be automatically rendered in a non-visual way
(e.g. using a screen reader),
for things that may be used in deployments with users with disabilities.</span>
</p>
</section>
<!-- Units -->

<section id="common-constraints-units">
Expand Down