Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast

+1 to Graphics contrast SC

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 to the Graphics Contrast SC
>
> ** katie **
>
> Katie Haritos-Shea
>
> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)
>
> 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545>
>
> ryladog@gmail.com
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
> but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>
>> Hover on contrast of text is already covered under SC 1.4.3 per this
>> group.  A user with magnification may be using a pointing device and needs
>> to be able to see the content under the pointing device in sufficient
>> contrast.
>>
>>
>>
>> The minimum contrast success criterion (1.4.3) applies to text in the
>> page, including placeholder text and text that is shown when a pointer is
>> hovering over an object or when an object has keyboard focus. If any of
>> these are used in a page, the text needs to provide sufficient contrast. (
>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-
>> contrast-contrast.html)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Avila
>>
>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>>
>> *Level Access, inc.* (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)
>>
>> jon.avila@levelaccess.com
>>
>> 703.637.8957 <(703)%20637-8957> (Office)
>>
>> Visit us online: Website <http://www.levelaccess.com/> | Twitter
>> <https://twitter.com/LevelAccessA11y> | Facebook
>> <https://www.facebook.com/LevelAccessA11y> | LinkedIn
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/level-access> | Blog
>> <http://www.levelaccess.com/blog/>
>>
>> *Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free
>> webinars!* <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>>
>>
>>
>> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged
>> and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
>> entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
>> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:32 AM
>> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> *Subject:* Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast
>>
>>
>>
>> No it would not. 1.4.1 does not mention the word state and include a
>> definition which includes hover. Hover does not fit into the things which
>> fail 1.4.1
>>
>> Take for example the page https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTA
>> NDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html
>>
>> There are contents, intro, Previous and Next buttons at the top of the
>> page. The only difference when they are hovered is the background color.
>>
>> The background color is #dde and the hover background color is #aae
>>
>> The ratio between these is 1.6:1
>>
>> I would not fail this page and I object to any SC which would fail this.
>> My current reading of this new SC along with the definition of state
>> proposed would and hence I object.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/16/2017 7:54 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
>>
>> Adding to what Alastair is saying, I’m confused by the objection because,
>> as you pointed out, using color alone to differentiate between hover and
>> non-hover would be a violation of 1.4.1.  Only when the 2 states are
>> adjacent and touching would this SC come into play, but the 3:1 ratio
>> requirement is the same.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com
>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:03 AM
>> *To:* James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* RE: CFC - Graphics Contrast
>>
>>
>>
>> > Requiring hover to have sufficient contrast ratio to non-hover states
>> has no accessibility requirements behind it as far as I know and would
>> unnecessarily limit color choices in an already limited palette.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t think that was discussed directly, but in order for that to be an
>> issue the controls in different states would have to be adjacent, i.e.
>> touching. Even without a mention of states, I think that would be an issue
>> in current WCAG conformance.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was some discussion about whether ‘existing’ was a state, and
>> people thought that wasn’t clear so ‘boundaries’ was added:
>>
>> “Visual information used to indicate states and boundaries of active user
>> interface components”
>>
>>
>>
>> (Still with the intent that if it isn’t there, you don’t have to add
>> something.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Does that help?
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards, James
>>
>> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
>> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918
>> <+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com
>> Oracle Corporate Architecture
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=500+Oracle+Parkway+%7C+Redwood+City,+CA+94065&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
>> protect the environment
>>
>
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG