RE: Visible controls updates

Hi all, wouldn't it be safer to say "not visible" than invisible? Seems like invisible implies it's there but can't be seen - whereas technically they might not be there and only added programmatically when hovered/focused. So we could get into trouble with people misunderstanding invisible.
Jonathan
From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 12:26 PM
To: wilco.fiers@deque.com
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Visible controls updates
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Wilco & group,
In the last meeting we discussed the re-write of Visible controls:
https://www.w3.org/2021/11/09-ag-minutes.html#item05
In the Friday meeting today we've updated that, visible in the PR:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2019/files
Wilco made some suggestions during the meeting for the first part of the SC text, to say something like "provide visible indicators that identify the available components", but in our discussion we thought:
 * Adding the word "identify" doesn't seem to add anything that "visible indicator" is not already saying.
 * Adding the verb identify has larger ramifications, e.g. "provide visible indicators that identify the available components", would mean each available component has to be identifiable from the indicator, which is more than the intent. It doesn't allow for grouping.
We'd appreciate a little more info on what the core concern is.
Kind regards,
-Alastair
--
@alastc / www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com>