Tweak C39 and add new matching SCR40 #4404
Conversation
* wrap mention of `prefers-reduced-motion` in code tags * improve explanation for C39 * add a defensive reduced motion use (checking for `no-preference`) example code
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
Co-authored-by: Dan Bjorge <[email protected]>
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| <ol> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-04-22">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-06-02">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-05-19">19 May 2025</time>: Added {{ "SCR40" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should update the 2 changelog files so SCR40 is the latest, and reflect when it's merged rather than when the PR was first written
(FWIW I have started working on a way to automate the entire Techniques Change Log; not sure which will get done first)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Leaving this here as comment for whoever merges this eventually ... update the changelog dates
| @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ | |||
| <ol> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-04-22">2 Jun 2025</time>: Added {{ "G226" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
| <li><time datetime="2025-05-19">19 May 2025</time>: Added {{ "SCR40" | linkTechniques }}</li> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
@gundulaniemann asked:
My apologies, I am not finding where the question was first "asked above" and may be missing some context. Regardless, "content can still appear or relocate instantaneously" is not certain to fail an SC and does not seem obviously problematic on its face. OTOH, I did once have someone assert that supporting drag-and-drop meant failing SC 2.2.2 Pause, Stop, Hide. (I think their motivation was not wanting to do work to make their drag-and-drop keyboard accessible). I want to be a little cautious about answering "yes, right, that is correct". Please keep asking your question until it is settled for you. |
The question was asked by kfranqueiro in his memo "two weeks ago". |
Clarify it's about *motion* animation
|
I believe the concern about "if it moves at all, is that a failure" is now addressed (short answer: no, the SC only deals with motion animation - having in-between steps to create the illusion of motion; it doesn't say things aren't allowed to "jump" or move to another place) #4404 (comment) |
|
Leaving for one more week for TF members to review. Will move to Ready for Revview then. |
prefers-reduced-motionvia JavaScriptCloses #3931
Previews: