Does/should flagging any @distraction value imply @simplification=low?
matatk opened this issue · 3 comments
Module 1 states that distraction "is intended" to be applied to things that are not essential.
Is the intent that anything flagged as a distraction would be assumed to be of "low" simplification essentiality? Would making such a link break any known, or preclude any foreseen, cases? Would it cause author confusion?
If we mean "is intended to be used" in the "should" RFC/ARIA sense, then the simplification part is technically optional, so we should clarify that it's expected, but not mandatory.
If we're sure that anything flagged as a distraction is not essential, then the simplification=low part could be implicit. However, there is a "should" clause in the spec about providing an accessible name for the distracting content and I'm not sure why (so am quite possibly missing something). Perhaps the name could be used to offer the user the option of reviewing which content was hidden on the grounds of it being distracting, so at least they could find out that they're missing something? (I've just realised that could be the reason and it sounds like a neat feature :-).)
I believe we agreed right at the end of https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html that we should leave this as-is, because whilst a distraction (probably?) can't be critical it could be moderate or low.
Just a quick note that the discussion seems to start at https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html#x170
Closing this issue after confirming that there were no objections to leaving distraction as-is in the 24 May meeting minutes.